Bill C-55 (Historical)

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act

This enactment amends Part 2 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act by making the permanent impairment allowance available not only to veterans who are eligible for a disability award under that Act, but also to veterans who are eligible for a disability pension under the Pension Act. It also introduces a supplemental amount to the permanent impairment allowance for the most severely and permanently impaired veterans.
It amends Part 3 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to provide Canadian Forces members and veterans with a choice of payment options for a disability award.
It also amends the Pension Act by making the exceptional incapacity allowance available not only to veterans and members of the forces who are receiving a disability pension under that Act, but also to veterans and members who are receiving both such a pension and a disability award under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Callaghan, you talked a bit about the clawback and Bill C-55. One of the things we heard today in London was how important it is for a veteran to feel that there is purpose in his or her life, and meaningful work. Something they can do well is key, as they did things very well in the service.

Does the clawback that you talked about prevent people from seeking meaningful work? Do they determine it's just not worth it?

[Walter Callaghan]

With the clawbacks, there is a slight issue of how SISIP and VAC work on this as well, and what stage of the rehabilitation programs you're at. My understanding, as it is right now, is with the rehabilitation program, so long as you're on it, you're able to make a certain amount of money, up to a certain tier, then it starts getting claw backed. The initial amount is 50¢ on the dollar, then once you hit a certain amount, it's dollar per dollar.

Now, again, one of these issues that does not tend to get talked about is where the reserves fall in with a whole different ball game, a whole different kettle of worms of it being messed up.

Prior to 2012, with Bill C-55 coming in, which changed our deemed salary from $2,000 to $2,700, regardless of the stage of rehabilitation that we were at, we were able to work with an offset of 50¢ on the dollar. That allowed us to make up that gap, because the way the ELB, the earnings loss benefit, and SISIP's long-term disability work is that it's 75% of your salary, or the deemed salary in this case. The way that the 50¢ on the dollar offset worked was that it actually allowed you to make up to that amount, to make up that 25% difference. Then you started getting dollar for dollar docked off.

You could actually get back up to that level, and it was an incentive to go back to work. With the changes that occurred with Bill C-55 in 2012, when they shifted us up from $2,000 to $2,700 as a deemed salary, the way that SISIP turned around and managed this change, and the way that VAC managed this change, the 75% of $2,700 was $2,050. It was more than the previous deemed salary. They turned around and argued. I actually have correspondence from a former minister of Veterans Affairs under the previous Harper government, trying to go, oh no, this is actually what we mean to do. You're losing all of this because, well, your 75% is above the previous deemed salary. This increase that we gave you under Bill C-55, that makes up the difference that you could have actually made, the offset amount.

I don't want to swear. I nearly swore, I'm sorry about that. It did create an adverse situation for me. In it's current iteration, because Bill C-55 only shifted things last year, and I only finally got approved for the increase, the addition of ELB on top of the LTD—that whole confusing thing—I have not had employment income since that came into effect. I've been a Ph.D. student. I do occasionally get the opportunity to work as a teaching assistant. When I previously did that, it was docked dollar for dollar, thanks to the Bill C-55 change. I have not had a TA shift since Bill C-55 occurred, so I don't know yet whether I'm going to be docked dollar for dollar. The indication that I've had, because I'm also no longer on the rehabilitation program, is that I will automatically be docked dollar for dollar.

Did I make a confusing situation more confusing?

[Guy Parent]

Yes, that's a good point. I think that changing the language will facilitate access, assessment, determination. In fact, the allowance was called the permanent impairment allowance before, and it's now called the career impact allowance; yet, when Bill C-55 introduced this particular benefit, it did say that it was to compensate for the loss of capacity to earn for retirement and to progress in the armed forces through the different rank structures. It has nothing to do really with the impairment per se, but with the ability to earn. I think it's probably a lot easier, too, to interpret a situation in a case management context based on someone's capacity to earn rather than the physical deficiencies of that individual.

[Bradley K. White]

I, too, grew up with veterans. My grandfather was a company commander in Dieppe. He served with Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt, who received the Victoria Cross for his actions in Pourville. I knew Mr. Merritt when I was a young lieutenant, and I listened to his stories, so I know them well.

We all hope that what we're doing here is serving our veterans and making their lives better. That's why we do this. We're not politicians. That's why when we address you, we address you collectively as the government, regardless of what party you belong to.

As was mentioned, Robert Borden said years ago that it's the obligation of the government to look after those they send away to serve. We in the legion believe very much that it's the government's obligation to do that. You are all government to us. So our position is to advocate on behalf of those veterans to make sure that after they've served, they're looked after, to make sure that they have a healthy and productive life after they've been injured. That is our aim.

Is it incremental? Yes, it's incremental. But remember, 2006 and Bill C-55 in 2011 were the first steps to improve and breathe some life into the charter. We now have some more incremental steps in Bill C-58, which have been incorporated into Bill C-59, to do that again. We won't stop pushing. We said that in our statement.

[Bradley K. White]

I suppose we'll start it off. Thank you for the question.

I'll answer in English.

One of the issues we have is that in 2006, when the new Veterans Charter came in, it came in as a living document. We didn't see any life in the document until 2011, when we had Bill C-55. When it came in it actually put something back into the new Veterans Charter. That was a start.

Bill C-58, now incorporated in this Bill C-59, is another start, we believe, in making the changes necessary to the new Veterans Charter, to make it a document that's alive, that's living, that's meeting the needs of the veterans at this time.

There will be more needs for veterans as we go down into the future. Bill C-59 does not fix all the issues or gaps in the new Veterans Charter right now. It's a start, and we're positive that this start will keep going. We want to see more. The new Veterans Charter has to continue to evolve to meet the needs of the veterans.

Wayne has indicated that PTSD is the tip of the iceberg at this stage of the game. It is the tip of the iceberg. Latent onset of PTSD is going to happen. We have not seen the full extent of what's going to happen with the mental illness problems we have out there on the street right now. We're going to have to take the steps necessary to address those in the future.

[Guy Parent]

No, that's for sure.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I would say two years would probably be timely to my mind. There was a two-year clause in Bill C-55 and it seems to me that it takes a year or so to get things into place, and there are new missions and things like that which may affect the impact on veterans and their families. To me, two years would be a good time to look at that.

However, that doesn't mean the department should not look at it on a daily basis and every time an evolving need is made known. Certainly, as a special adviser to the minister, I can bring things to him as far as what is changing in the veterans community and what is evolving is concerned. Then the department needs to be responsive to that immediately, not wait for.... Always, my concern would be that if you set a specific time, people may wait on the thought that we'll be doing the review in six months. That's not meeting evolving needs, to my mind.

[Brian Forbes]

I appreciate that. I would just share our pain in the veterans' community.

In 2006 the Veterans Charter was enacted and we were promised, as a basic veterans stakeholders' group, that this was a living charter and that each year there would be a total review, as we're doing this year in 2015, of the charter to identify those areas where there are voids and inequities. It's the frustration, I think, of 10 years of waiting Mr. Hawn, through you, Mr. Chair. This has finally reached a point where there's an opportunity to get it right, and it is discouraging in a way that we have not yet taken on all of the elements of this new Veterans Charter reform.

That is why I feel it's important that we continue the momentum. It may seem like an insignificant thing to you, but I would suggest that getting the formal commitment of the minister that this momentum will continue, and I know he's made strong statements before this committee and in other places, like the veterans summit, to that effect.

I think it's important, and I give credit to this committee. In 2011, when you passed Bill C-55, you made it a condition that the minister of the day would come back to you, as I recall, within six months, to take a look at the bill to see how effective it was. I would like to suggest you do that with regard to this bill.

[Sean Bruyea, Retired Captain, Columnist, Media Personality and Academic Researcher, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. You have much on your plate, so I will skip further formalities.

On May 29, 2012, coincidental with the announcement not to appeal the class action lawsuit involving the Canadian Forces insurance plan known as SISIP, the Government of Canada committed to cease offsetting the Pension Act pain and suffering monthly payments from four other plans: the earnings loss benefit, the Canadian Forces income support, the war veterans allowance, and civilian war-related benefits. I will speak specifically about the earnings loss benefit, or ELB.

The ELB is an income loss program and a key pillar of the controversial legislation commonly known as the new Veterans Charter. Bill C-31 provides retroactivity in returning to the veterans the Pension Act pain and suffering deduction offsets of ELB from May 29 to September 2012.

During the launch of the new Veterans Charter, including the earnings loss benefit, on April 6, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised that:Our troops’ commitment and service to Canada entitle them to the very best treatment possible. This Charter is but a first step towards according Canadian veterans the respect and support they deserve.

If the government decided that the policy of offsetting monthly Pension Act payments for ELB is not what our troops deserved on May 29, 2012, did our troops deserve the unfair deductions on May 28, 2012? For that matter, did our troops deserve the unfair deductions for any day back to April 6, 2006, when the earnings loss benefit program was created?

ELB is clearly an income loss program. The Pension Act is indisputably a program for pain and suffering. Our courts have long stipulated that income loss is to be maintained completely separate from general damages, otherwise known as pain and suffering payments. No other provincial civilian workplace insurance program in Canada deducts pain and suffering payments from income loss programs. Why have our disabled veterans and their families been subjected to an unjustifiable lesser standard from April 2006 to May 2012?

Even if we ignore the strong legal precedent of not deducting pain and suffering payments from income loss programs, this arbitrary retroactive date of May 29, 2012, comes across as petty. The indefensible retroactive date creates an additional class of veterans once again. Those in the SISIP class action lawsuit had their problem rectified back to when SISIP began offsetting Pension Act payments. Why are ELB recipients not accorded the same dignity?

Justice, or the appearance of justice being done, is plainly not being offered in Bill C-31. Should you pass the legislation as is, you will force the most disabled veterans under the flagship Conservative veterans benefit program known as the new Veterans Charter to enter the paralytic morass of years of unnecessary and bitter legal battles. These battles will sap the health, the family stability, and the dignity of military veterans and their families.

We say that we honour our injured veterans as a nation and as a government, but Parliament's actions often speak otherwise. Before we hesitate because of cost, please remember that these disabled veterans never hesitated when Parliament ordered them into harm's way, knowing full well that many would die or become disabled for life.

Major Todd, the architect of the Pension Act philosophy of pain and suffering payment, stated in 1919 that Those who give public service do so not for themselves alone but for the society of which they are a part. Therefore, each citizen should share equally in the suffering which war brings to his nation.

This is just one tangible and clear example of the debt we keep promising to pay to our veterans, but we do not

What is also troubling about Bill C-31 is what is absent: the further debts we must pay. The earnings loss benefit is not being increased to 100% of military release salary while providing lost potential career earnings, yet civilian workplace compensation schemes recognize this loss potential. Boosting ELB to 100% has been emphatically pushed by the major veterans groups and the two VAC advisory groups established to study the matter, as well as the House committee on veterans affairs.

There are also no provisions for providing child care and spousal income assistance to the most disabled veterans. The most disabled are not supported for education upgrades or to pursue any employment opportunity to better themselves or improve their esteem. The monthly supplement provided under Bill C-55 in 2011 is denied those seriously disabled veterans collecting the exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act.

My first of now eight parliamentary committee appearances was in front of the Senate version of this committee, the national finance committee, on May 11, 2005. I raised then and continue to raise serious concerns about the charter. My concerns were generally ignored by government, but not by veterans and the public. Had substantive action been taken then, we would not be in year eight of the tragic mess regarding how our veterans are mistreated and often pushed aside by the new Veterans Charter and Veterans Affairs Canada.

I also warned Parliament of the harassment of those who oppose the new Veterans Charter. This was also ignored, only to explode on the national media agenda five years later, with what some call the largest privacy breach in Canadian history—my privacy. As such, provisions such as those in Bill C-31 that would allow CRA to voluntarily hand over confidential taxpayer data to the police without approval of a judge send shivers down my spine, as they should for every Canadian. Surely the magnitude of Bill C-31 is disconcerting. The consequence of ignoring Canadians' and veterans' input is indeed a perilous road.

Undoubtedly, parliamentarians and the public service work hard for democracy. However, none can claim to have sacrificed what our military has sacrificed to preserve our democratic way of life. The omnibus budget bill does not meet Canada's democratic standard. It allows many changes to Canada's laws to enter the back door of government policy without full participatory and democratic due process. Ramming through legislation without proper scrutiny is an insult to the dignity of all that the military has sacrificed in Canada's name and at Parliament's order.

The omnibus budget bill is a perversion of democracy, in my mind, a democracy for which almost 120,000 Canadians have lost their lives and for which hundreds of thousands more have lived and continue to live with lifelong disabilities as a result of serving our nation.

Surely Parliament can do better.

Thank you.

[Robert Thibeau, President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of this Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, fellow veterans, ladies, and gentlemen, I acknowledge the fact that we meet here tonight on unceded Algonquin territory and I thank the Algonquin people. I also thank the creator for the opportunity for me to address the concerns of not only aboriginal veterans, but all veterans.

My name is Robert Thibeau. I am the president of the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones, an organization which represents aboriginals from across Canada, as well as North America. I also represent tonight the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. I received an email today sanctioning what I have to say today and they are in agreement with the majority, if not everything that I have said, especially as it deals with some of the issues that I will speak on. I also by memorandum of understanding with first nations veterans of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations veterans, and the veterans of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples....

This is my second appearance in front of this committee and I must say that once again, it's a privilege to be here and I thank you for that privilege.

Before I speak in regards to the issues on the new Veterans Charter, I believe it is important that I speak on issues surrounding aboriginal veterans. The historical military contributions made by aboriginals since the period of contact are well-documented and certainly have a major impact on how we view Canada today as a free and prosperous country. Aboriginal alliances and their contributions were instrumental in the failure of the Americans to gain any ground occupied inside Upper and Lower Canada during the War of 1812 and contributions after Confederation saw large numbers of aboriginals enlist to fight for Canada in both world wars as well as Korea. These contributions today to Canada continue.

What has not been totally recognized is the discriminatory practices against aboriginals, more so against veterans of first nations, regarding both the Soldier Settlement Act and Veterans’ Land Act, which not only affected the veteran but also impacted the families as well. You may be surprised that both acts did not apply to status Indians unless they enfranchised, in other words relinquished their identity as Indians. Income benefits for spouses of those serving overseas...in a majority of cases did not receive those benefits or they were lowered by the Indian agent. The office of Indian Affairs had made a plea to Veterans Affairs that returning aboriginal veterans should be the responsibility of Indian Affairs and not Veterans Affairs Canada.

What I have just presented to you can be found in a paper authored by Dr. Sheffield entitled, “A Search for Equity.” This paper studied the treatment of first nations veterans and dependants of World Wars I and II, and Korea.

I'd like to read an excerpt from an email I received from one of our veterans after I placed an email regarding my appearance here today. “Thank you for the information hereunder. I am familiar with the new Veterans Charter, having been a member of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 96 for the past 60 years and speaking personally as a WWII war service-related disability pensioner and as a warrior Métis, I have absolutely no complaints whatsoever.”

He is not talking about our new Veterans Charter, he is in fact talking about his treatment when he got out of the war in 1945. The only comparison I might make would be the differences now between the present charter and the post-World War II excellent method of treating World War II veterans. Moreover, that refers to the veterans post-war processing on one zone 1945 discharge and the wonderful benefits derived thereof, namely the war service gratuity and the re-establishment credit.

This statement outlines the discrepancies all too evident in the new Veterans Charter today. There have been significant changes with the charter with respect to aboriginal veterans and how they are treated. The new Veterans Charter is now a hot topic of discussion, which includes all veterans and we are now included in that process. There are some issues which mirror veterans across Canada but there are others which are distinct to aboriginal veterans.

Now I would like to read some excerpts from the Prime Minister's announcement of the new Veterans Charter in 2006:

I would like to take this opportunity once again to thank these men and women for their efforts and to let them know that Canadians are proudly standing behind them and their mission....

In future, when our servicemen and women...leave our military family, they can rest assured the Government will help them and their families' transition to civilian life. Our troops’ commitment and service to Canada entitle them to the very best treatment possible.

Regarding the earnings loss benefit, currently the benefit provides 75% of pre-release salary, terminated at age 65 for a totally and permanently impaired veteran. The Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and its partners view this as unacceptable. Those who have suffered and are classed as permanently impaired should never be concerned that they will lose any financial stability, especially beyond the age of 65.

In addition, we, along with all our other veterans groups, believe that the ELB should be 100% and continue beyond age 65. As has been said, an appropriate table must be developed in a fair and just manner to ensure veterans with permanent impairments are looked after by a grateful nation. As has also been mentioned, it is the approach utilized by the Canadian courts in assessing the concept of future loss of income specifically addressing the projected lifetime earnings loss in a personal injury claim. So if this is applied to civilian workers who are not deliberately placed in harm's way by their employer, why should this concept not be applied equally as well towards all permanently incapacitated Canadian Armed Forces members?

The ombudsman's report of 2013 addressed the issues of the ELB, and his report is quite thorough. He addressed the PIA and the supplement, and, as noted, the average financial payments to those who qualify. Neither Veterans Affairs Canada nor the ombudsman provides any explanation about the discriminatory factors that mean of the 1,428 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans, only 274 will receive all benefits, some will receive ELB only, and others will receive nothing. There appears to be a wide interpretation of the term “totally and permanently incapacitated”. The disparity in numbers between those who receive both the permanent impairment allowance and supplement and those who do not make the benefits appears to be window dressing.

With regard to reserves, the policy awarding smaller benefits to a reservist is based on the deemed standard monthly salary of a reservist, whatever that amount may be. This policy may provide soldiers for hire on the cheap, but it places a higher value on a regular force soldier involved in the same incident with identical injuries than it does on a reservist. Both regular and reserve force individuals with like injuries will suffer the same incapacitation throughout their lives and should receive the same salary considerations and minimum rates of the recommended table payable to a totally, permanently incapacitated veteran. The charter must be changed to provide equal and appropriate benefits to all totally and permanently incapacitated veterans.

With regard to veterans who are over age 65, some, but not all, disabled veterans will have a CFSA pension benefit and will also have accumulated credits towards their CPP benefit that should enable them to sustain themselves after the age of 65 when ELB benefits are cut off. That is for some.

About 274 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans receive both the permanent impairment allowance and supplement until aged 65. These individuals may or may not be able to prepare themselves for post-65 financial requirements. However, a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran who did not receive the permanent impairment allowance or its supplement and also has a CFSA pension and insufficient credits towards the CPP is placed in a financially precarious position. Once again we strongly argue the case for those permanently impaired veterans and the responsibility of the government and Canadians to honour the social contract that has finally been acknowledged to some extent by the current minister.

The ombudsman has completed a great deal of work in consultation with veterans, and his report should be closely scrutinized.

With regard to the disability award, this benefit is generally misunderstood and is awarded for pain and suffering only. The fact that it can be paid in a lump sum or increments is irrelevant. It must not be seen as an income replacement benefit, because it is not.

The ombudsman has pointed out that the value of the maximum benefit has not kept pace with awards of Canadian courts to civilians who were not placed in harm's way, as were Canadian Armed Forces members. It is unfortunate that this anomaly was not corrected in 2011 with the other amendments of Bill C-55; however, there is no reason why this cannot be done now, and this must be a priority of the government.

It is also our view that the Equitas lawsuit is a negative blemish on this current government. It is our view that this should be withdrawn instead of wasting funds to pay for unnecessary court costs at the expense of those who have sacrificed a great deal for this country, and who also saw Afghanistan as a mission in which we very much had to be involved. Now it's time to step up and look after them in the fairest and most equitable way.

I know I'm going a little over the time. Please bear with me.

Communications to remote and rural communities are concerns that will impact those affected by the recent closures of the Veterans Affairs offices. How do we ensure that information regarding benefits is delivered to our veterans on reserves or those living in remote areas? Remote reserves in B.C. are only one example where, as a result of those office closures, aboriginal veterans, as well as other veterans in northern B.C., will now have to travel upwards of 16 hours to seek information from VAC. I do not believe that Service Canada is an alternative.

We must also consider the Canadian Rangers, who will in all likelihood become clients of Veterans Affairs in the future. As a look ahead, and without the creation of another bureaucracy, we should look at the resources that may be effective and are already there. The army chain of command operates in the remote regions in northern Canada, and therefore they are in direct contact with those soldiers. It may well be possible to utilize military trainers who are attached to those soldiers as a capable resource to deliver and possibly to provide brief presentations on Veterans Affairs and the benefits those soldiers may be entitled to.

For those communities that do not have high-tech computers or communications capabilities—and there are many—maybe we could be using the Canadian Forces recruiters to provide information to veterans as a secondary duty in order to ensure that information makes its way to veterans, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

With regard to veterans health services, there has been talk in recent years, and now Health Canada and the provincial government of B.C. are in the process of transferring health funding directly to first nations in B.C. The issue here is that we cannot allow the historical negative practices of the past to affect aboriginal veterans and the responsibility that Veterans Affairs has to those veterans. Steps must be taken to ensure that the health problem of an aboriginal veteran does not take any of the money that has been given in a health funding envelope to reserves. To resolve this issue, consultation across Canada must identify veterans who are under Veterans Affairs care and entitled to benefits, or who will be future clients of Veterans Affairs, and must ensure that interdepartmental communications lead to concrete agreements in the interests of veterans and not at the expense of community funding.

Finally, some of our Canadian aboriginal veterans have completed service with the United States armed forces. They have served in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their entitlements and benefits provided are under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or DVA. The problem is that in order to access these benefits they need to be inside U.S. borders. I would ask that efforts be made between VAC and the DVA to work out some form of an agreement that addresses the issue of travel for access to those benefits.

I'm not asking VAC to take over the responsibility, but in consultation with DVA, please see if there's a way we can address that.

The new Veterans Charter, when introduced, was unanimously accepted by all political parties, as well as the military chain of command.

At first glance, it appeared to address the needs of veterans and their families but over the years it was discovered to be deficient in some areas. One can appreciate that nothing is perfect, and the NVC must remain a living and working document.

We must come together as one, both veterans and politicians, to reach a consensus on how best we can look after the needs of those who have sacrificed for this country. Public support for this military and its veterans is at its highest level since the end of the Second World War.

A new generation of Canadians has looked upon our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women with pride and with honour. Veterans deserve to have the government answer, as best it can, the needs of its veterans and not forget the families. While financial compensation is only one part of the issue, health care is also a concern, and we must ensure that those benefits are available.

In addition, the families of those who have deployed around the globe have also suffered from the ghosts of war. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with loved ones who have deployed to areas where human life has not been kind. We must look at these family members as well, and we must reach out and touch the families the same way we're asking you to touch those veterans.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the excellent work that has been completed by our Veterans Ombudsman, as well as recognize the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command for their continued hard work in addressing concerns on behalf of veterans.

History has not necessarily been kind to our aboriginal veterans and their families, but I see hope in the future, hope that as a veterans community, all issues of concern for all veterans of Canada will be equitable and just. I must insist that this committee disregard partisan politics and address veterans issues and concerns with one voice.

I challenge everyone on this committee to look at the issues and not party platforms. All Canadians have acknowledged the sacrifice of all veterans of all conflicts and peace missions of the 20th and 21st centuries.

I thank the chairman and all members of this committee for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the aboriginal veterans, their families, as well as all the other veterans.

Meegwetch, merci, qujannamiik, and all my respect.

[Donald Leonardo]

It was 300 recommendations to fix the new Veterans Charter.

We were told that this was going to be a living charter. I don't know who the doctor is who is going to give CPR to this charter, if it is living; we've had one change in ten years. You may say it's not ten years, but even if you come out with a bill tomorrow, it is still going to take a year and a half to implement, just as Bill C-55 did, That's one change in ten years—for a living document.

Why is the veteran community so upset? It's because we're sitting here and we have to do study after study, when the studies have already been done. You've spent millions of dollars having veterans come to sit in these committee meetings and talk about the problems in the new Veterans Charter. You've spent millions of dollars going through the problems within the veteran community and discussing how we can support the veteran better. You spent millions of dollars, but we're still not providing support for families or for the wife of an injured veteran when she has to quite her job to look after her husband.

A veteran is losing, even if he gets the earnings loss benefit; he gets a 25% pay deduction, after being injured. I'd like to know which member of Parliament here would take a 25% pay cut, along with all the bureaucrats and all the government employees. They were injured in the line of duty and have to take a 25% pay cut while they go through treatment, rehabilitation, and so on.

I've been through the new Veterans Charter from the start to the end of it. I'm now totally and permanently impaired, so I've gone through the whole charter. I can attest to it. Why should an injured veteran take a 25% pay cut and then his wife have to take a 100% cut while she looks after him?

We need to start listening to these recommendations from veterans organizations such as the stakeholder committee, the Legion-hosted veteran consultation group, and so on.

I support the three priorities that have been said over and over again by the Legion, by the National Council of Veterans Associations, and by the other stakeholders. I support the three priorities that the Veterans Ombudsman has brought forward over and over again.

I think it's time to make a change. We need it done quickly this time.

Recently, when I was told that I was going to come to Ottawa and speak before you....

Actually, before I go on with that, there is one thing that I forgot to mention; Sean just pointed this out.

The other thing is that in 1972, a sergeant who retired from the military got a pension when he turned 60, and it was indexed. He got a pension of about $1000 a month. A sergeant who retired yesterday with the same amount of time and same rank will get $3000 a month. If there is a cost of living or CPI increase every year, why is there such a difference between the sergeant who got out in 1972 and the sergeant who gets out in 2012? Can you tell me why?

The reason is that there were top-ups in the early 1980s and 1990s that topped up the National Defence salaries and left the veterans behind. Increases for the veterans have been under 2% per year. That's why they're falling behind. That's why they can't even afford to go into extended living, because even that costs more with Chartwell Retirement Residences.

We need to increase the amount of money that they get from even their own superannuation, and with the injured veterans we need to ensure that there's normal career progression, because they should not be penalized because they were injured in the line of duty.

As I was saying, I polled the 7,400 members of Veterans of Canada, and the immediate response was that the fact is that everybody is stalled at the gate before they even start the new Veterans Charter. A year and a half ago you had the study on VRAB, but it's time to fix the problem. The solutions that were put forward have not changed a single thing.

This is the entry into the new Veterans Charter, so I have a solution to the problem. I've passed out a handout. The solution is a new way to process and approve injury claims for veterans.

In embarking on the road less travelled, Veterans of Canada has canvassed its more than 7,400 members. The majority of our members want to see a better and fairer system put in place that reduces time and wait periods, a system that is proven and that gives the benefit of the doubt, as the Veterans Ombudsman stated previously.

Over the past several years there have been requests to have more veterans employed within the Government of Canada, even to the point that we have now put forward a bill that I feel is very good—I've been pushing for this for years—which provides for priority hiring for veterans.

Let's now offer some other jobs. Let's start the Bureau of Pensions Advocates up again so that we can hire veterans as claims processors. Making the initial claim is a stumbling block for veterans. They fill out the paperwork, but they never have the right documents, and then it is kicked back and we have a problem, because then they have to go through appeals.

If we went back to the pre-1996 Bureau of Pensions Advocates system and hired some claims processors to be with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, we could have a checklist that indicates that the medical documents from National Defence are attached, the medical documents from Veterans Affairs are attached, and the medical documents from the civilian doctor are attached. This is an opportunity to have a proper claim submitted so that it can be properly adjudicated, and without haste.

The next thing is to get rid of VRAB and get rid of the current system of adjudicating and bring in an evidence-based system. Right now, with National Defence there is a medical review board, and it has been that way for years. It actually works.

Why not just mirror that National Defence board with Veterans Affairs? Hire ex-doctors and ex-nurses, ex-doctors' assistants, 6A and 6B medical people who served in the military—giving more jobs to veterans within the system—but have them adjudicate, because they're the people who treated us. They know the injuries we've had, they see the records, and they understand the x-rays—they were the ones who were doing this.

The only time they would actually see the claim is if someone had been out of the military for a while. The ones coming over from the military have already been adjudicated by the medical review board, so send it to the Veterans Affairs medical officer and he can sign off on it and just pass it to whoever puts numbers to it from the table of disabilities. This is a simple system.

Next, if they happened to turn down a claim, then the appeal process is this. In the U.S. they've started veterans' courts. And yes, they are for criminal cases, but we can have a veterans' court in each province, and either a retired or a sitting judge could sit in each province. On the appeal, your BPA lawyer sits with you and a Veterans Affairs lawyer sits on the other side and argues the benefit of the doubt, just as in a criminal case, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

This is a fair system, allowing for a judge who has spent his whole career on the bench to weigh the evidence presented and then make a decision. This is an evidence-based system that I am proposing.

Lastly, we now have some research that has been done in Kingston, and there is research that has been done all around the world, on veterans' injuries and problems. If that research team happens to find new information or evidence that shows that some of the claims they had turned down are actually legitimate, then we can have a database—this is the age of technology—so that instead of going through the whole process again, the medical doctor in charge of the Veterans Affairs medical review board will just ask them to take all the similar cases out and approve them because new medical evidence has been shown.

This is a very simple system that I'm putting forward. I think this would make the flow to the new Veterans Charter much quicker instead of having people wait four or five months for the first adjudication. Then it goes to the first appeal for another four, five, or six months. Some of these cases go on for six, eight, ten, or twelve years. Recently I was shown one from 1998. We need to speed this up based on medical evidence. That's the way to go. The consensus in the veteran community is that it would be a better process.

I thank you for letting me come and attend today. I hope I provided some solutions instead of just saying this is bad and that is bad. I hope I have provided you with some thought and some solutions, and I hope we can move forward helping those who are seriously in need of help.

I thank you.

[Melynda Jarratt, Historian, Canadian War Brides]

Thank you very much.

I am Melynda Jarratt and I am an historian of the Canadian war brides. I've been doing research, writing, and documenting the Canadian war bride experience for more than 25 years. I'm here today to speak about the Veterans Charter because I believe it is important for you as parliamentarians to understand the similarities between the veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War and the modern-day veterans, for although they may seem very different, they are in fact very similar. These are the veterans of the Afghanistan, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia conflicts.

The pain that the World War II veterans suffered and the lessons that they learned about pensions, services, and the support for physical and mental injuries that they suffered, including undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, are things that I sincerely hope are not lost on this committee as it reviews the Veterans Charter and Bill C-55.

I'm particularly interested in the issue of PTSD because it's something that I have heard a lot about in the course of my research. It's not something I really expected to hear, but it keeps on coming up. Whenever I hear about PTSD, I'm immediately brought back to a war bride who I met a very long time ago—one of the very first war brides I met in my research—who told me about the story of her arrival in Canada in 1946. Her husband had served in England first, and then he was sent over to the Normandy landings, Belgium, Holland, and then into Germany. His service was fraught with unspeakable horrors that no human should have to see or expect to live through, yet he did. He survived and he was shipped back to Canada.

He was given a prescription for his nerves and expected to return to civilian life, to a job and to his family who were soon coming over; the war bride was coming over with her little baby. Within a year he was dead. He killed himself as the pressure was too much for him. He committed suicide, leaving her a widow with a small child and with no skills really. At that time it was traditional that women did not work. There was no social support system. There was no social welfare system here in Canada at that time. She had no family so she returned to Britain. Here was a family devastated by the legacy of war. His pain was over but hers was just beginning.

She's one of many, many women and children who I have met in the course of the last 25 years as I have worked on the issue of Canadian war brides.

Other Canadian veterans of the Second World War, their wives, and their families suffered in silence with undiagnosed PTSD for years. It was not clinically recognized. I know you've heard this before. So what ended up happening is when you had a problem, they'd ship you off to the psychiatrist, say for example at Lancaster Hospital in Saint John, which was for veterans. They gave you a prescription and sent you back home where you immediately went to the Legion or out in the woods with your buddies and spent a lot of time drinking to dull the pain. It was an all too familiar story for many children of Canadian veterans whose alcoholic fathers spent more time at the Legion with their army buddies than they did at home with their families.

Another war bride tells me of the day her husband arrived from overseas in their tiny village in northern New Brunswick in June 1945. She had arrived about a year before him on an earlier draft of war brides in 1944. She landed in this little town with her 18-month-old daughter, and they happily anticipated the return of her husband, who had been awarded a military medal for bravery; he had saved a comrade in Italy. He had gone on after Italy to Holland and through to Germany until the end of the war and came back. He was a wreck. Of course she didn't know that because she was in Canada, so they happily anticipated the day of his return.

Well, on the day of his return in June 1945, they went to the bus stop to wait for him and he never showed up. Two days later he arrived drunk, dishevelled, and abusive. That was basically the rest of her life in Canada. She's still alive now; she is 92 years old. His drinking continued and worsened. He wasn't the same man that she had met in England and fallen in love with.

He lost his job. He had nightmares, kicking his legs at night. They couldn't sleep together anymore. He was always kicking her and hitting her, screaming, fighting with his friends at the Legion, where he'd get drunk and then get kicked out. He finally got a part-time job working in the woods, and he found peace in the woods. That was the place he really loved, but he never had a full-time job. She had to go to work. He never killed himself either, but he put his family through hell. The wounds went down through the family, through the generations, to her daughter and then their grandchildren.

I could go on and on with cases like this from World War II.

Another fellow, a World War II veteran, in an alcoholic rage threatened to kill all his children with a shotgun. He chased them down a rural road outside of Fredericton, taking potshots at them. He physically abused his wife. He pushed her down when she was seven months pregnant. He knocked out her front teeth. He kicked her in the stomach. He caused her to go into premature labour. I met one of the babies who survived that kicking. She cried, and I cried too, because it was a terrible story.

I also heard of wives who hid from their husbands at their friends' homes, their black eyes covered with glasses and makeup. I heard of wives who left with the children, eking out an existence in poverty in New Brunswick, or who left to go back to Britain, Holland, or France, all of the different countries where the war brides came from, because they just could not stand the abuse.

These are memories that die very, very hard. In fact, they don't die; they live on in the minds of the people who were affected by it.

I am here today to tell you that 75 years after the declaration of the Second World War, which we are commemorating with great fanfare, there are thousands of Canadians whose World War II fathers suffered from undiagnosed PTSD and put their families through hell. These children are still suffering from it. This is quantifiable pain with quantifiable suffering. It can be measured. It is not a fairy tale or an excuse for bad behaviour. It is real, and it is caused by the horrors of the Second World War.

This brings me to today's veterans of the Afghanistan, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia conflicts. I live in Fredericton, next door to Canada's largest military training base in Gagetown. Soldiers have been part of the life of Fredericton for nearly 200 years, and I dare say more than 200 years. I see soldiers in uniform in the city all the time, but it's the ones I don't see who I worry about, the ones who have disappeared into poverty, who have turned to drugs and alcohol, and who have, worse, killed themselves, leaving a crushing void behind.

There have been several suicides recently of New Brunswick soldiers. Every time I hear about another soldier who has killed themselves, I think of the war brides. I wonder what they think when they read these articles in the newspaper or listen to the television and hear about these suicide stories. I wonder how these women managed with so much suffering in their lives for 30, 40, 50, 60 years. Granted, it was a different time, with a different way of thinking. There were the traditional values and attitudes towards marriage: you made your bed, you had to lie in it; divorce was unacceptable; and marriage was forever, the phrase I often heard.

Today's wives are different. They have a modern way of thinking about relationships. Divorce is not so unthinkable today. They have the Internet, which allows them to explore the resources they have available. There's a social safety net for them. There are also social support services, transition houses where they can go to for their safety, which the war brides of World War II did not have. Our society no longer turns a blind eye to that kind of abuse, shushing it up like they used to.

Most importantly, with all the suicides there has been a greater focus on the causes of PTSD. Canadians have a greater understanding of the issues. Talk to anybody on the streets—anybody—and you will hear a lot of sympathy for today's veterans. Canadians have connected the dots between modern soldiers' service in conflict zones and the combat injuries such as PTSD. It may be too late for those veterans of World War II and the Korean War, but it is not too late for today's veterans. They need our support, and so do their wives and their children.

Canadian soldiers of the Second World War didn't have everything they needed, especially when it came to undiagnosed PTSD, but they had one thing they could count on and that was a pension. One 91-year-old war bride whose late husband served overseas for nearly six years, from December 1939—so that meant he was with the first troops who landed on December 17, 1939—to June 1945, two of those years as a prisoner of war in Germany, and who suffered undiagnosed PTSD their entire married life, told me the other day that she didn't really have anything to complain about in terms of money, and she felt that she was well taken care of. She did have this to say, and, let me tell you, the wisdom of these old ladies just never fails to amaze me. She said a widow is only as good as her husband's pension, which is precisely the problem.

She has his pension. It is guaranteed.

She has the VIP, of course, and help with assisted devices such as walkers or chairs, and even an adapted potato peeler if she needs it, because many years ago, she applied for and received assistance as a British veteran, when this was offered to Canadian war brides and apparently to males as well who were British veterans. You could get the same types of services that Canadian veterans were getting, not a pension per se but VIP services. So she gets those things. Meanwhile, she has a friend down the street who's also a war bride, who also served in World War II in Kenley. She's a 92-year-old war bride. She's a veteran of the British WAAFs. She survived the bombing of the Kenley air force base in Britain in 1941, during the Battle of Britain. She did not apply for those services before they cut them off, and consequently she does not get them.

These two women live in the same area. One gets perks and the other doesn't. That's not fair, if you ask me. I am sure there are hundreds of other people just like them. It's an example to me of the inequality that is rife across the system because of arbitrary deadlines and decisions that are made in offices by faceless bureaucrats and politicians who have no idea how their actions affect the quality of people's lives. As was the case with the Veterans Charter, decisions affecting the quality of people's lives have been made. I agree with the testimony that has been given here as recently as last week by Canadian veterans advocate Michael Blais, who said that Canadian soldiers, their wives, and their children should have a choice as to whether they want a lump sum payment or a pension.

These war brides,who are 91, 89, 92, or 93 years old, most of them having outlived their husbands, are living proof that these benefits they receive, uneven as they may be, give them a quality of life that others do not have. They can live independently in their homes. They can get a little bit of help with their housekeeping or snow shovelling or lawn mowing. It's the kind of assistance that improves the quality of their lives. That new generation we're talking about, the modern-day veterans, are young and they have their life ahead of them, and I suppose that's what worries the government. It's thinking, “Oh, my God. Look, we have another 75 years ahead of us with these people.”

My war bride friend and her husband, who was captured in Sicily and who served two years in a prisoner of war camp, were also young 75 years ago. They had a life ahead of them. They were promised a sacred trust. It is an obligation. What is so different between a human being who gave their youth and their life for their country 75 years ago and the young men and women who are coming up through the Canadian military today? I see no difference whatsoever. The sacred trust cannot be broken. If it is broken, then all the stickers and the buttons and the flag-waving and the mantra about save our troops is meaningless pablum.

If you disagree with supporting our troops, then somehow you are unpatriotic, and you in fact may even be considered treasonous. However, if you talk to some of these people today who have been speaking before you about the treatment they've been receiving, they do feel they have been abandoned. They do not feel that the government supports our troops. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Department of Veterans Affairs hasn't always done what was right, and they should be admonished for it.

I recall a story told to me by the daughter of a Japanese prisoner of war who, after having survived the torture, the barbarity, and the malnutrition of four years as a prisoner of war came back to Canada to be reunited with his war bride. The only job he could get—because he had no education and he was just a private when he was captured in Hong Kong—was as an orderly in a mental hospital in Saint John, New Brunswick. That was a tough job for a prisoner of war coming back from four years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. He was on his feet a lot in the hospital, and he had trouble walking.

That suffering was the result of his torturers taking glee in beating him on the soles of his feet. When he applied for orthotic inserts, he was told that it was not connected to his war service. He was furious. He went into a ballistic rage at the DVA office in Saint John. He could not believe that they would deny him this measly assistance.

He never got his orthotics. It changed him, his daughter told me. He lost faith.

The family suffered because of his father's service. It's an insult that rings loud and clear all the way through to the third generation of that man's family. Talk about Veterans Affairs and that's the story you're going to hear about 75 years after the beginning of the Second World War, about how badly he was treated. They don't have fond memories of their father's treatment by the DVA. When his daughter tells that story I cry, because she cries. It's a terrible thing to hear.

I don't want to cry anymore with veterans' wives and children. I beg of you to do the right thing for veterans and widows and give them a choice as to whether they want the lump sum payment or a pension. It is the right thing to do, and it will restore Canadians' faith in the sacred trust between veterans and government. It is, as Senator Dallaire said, “a philosophical framework”, a set of values that will guide how we deal with veterans over the next 75 years.

Thank you very much.

[Ray Kokkonen]

Mr. Chair, members of this vital committee, good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to present to you the views of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, or CPVA for short, on the enhanced new Veterans Charter. With me, of course, is Joseph Gollner, our patron.

The CPVA, founded in 1991, is a national all-veteran, all-volunteer, not-for-profit apolitical organization with chapters from Vancouver Island to St. John's, Newfoundland. We receive no public funding. Our mission statement is to be a strong and leading advocate for all veterans and to provide a forum of comradeship for veterans. Our association is open to all veterans. Its membership includes World War II, Korean War, peacekeeping, NATO, Balkan, and Afghanistan campaigns, and RCMP, civilian police, and other veterans, with some international members.

The CPVA has been instrumental in such veterans issues as the start-up of the 1-800 VAC assistance line, the creation of the position of the Veterans Ombudsman, the initiation of the August 9 National Peacekeepers' Day, and the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal. CPVA also was active in the workup of the NVC, the Veterans Bill of Rights, and the development of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. Our members have served on numerous committees related to the NVC and other VAC committees.

One fundamental issue sets veterans in a unique place in Canadian society. They have served their country under the unlimited liability clause that commits them, if necessary, to lay down their lives as the ultimate sacrifice. They have served under a legal obligation to obey all lawful commands, regardless of consequence to themselves. The significance of this commitment and obligation is something that most Canadian citizens do not fully comprehend.

In return for their service, Canada has a duty to provide adequate and appropriate care for its wounded, injured, and sick veterans and their families so that they can live out their lives with dignity. VAC is the vehicle by which Canada meets it duty to veterans. By and large the department does a reasonable job, although it is seldom given credit for doing so. To that end, CPVA has had an awards program for several years at both national and regional levels to recognize outstanding VAC employees and/or their offices. The last recipient of our award was the Veterans Ombudsman and his staff.

We recognize that you have received numerous presentations from other veterans organizations. For that reason, our intention today is to focus on reinforcing the key or core issues only. In essence, as a member of the veterans consultation group of 20 veterans organizations, the CPVA fully agrees with and strongly supports the three priority issues about the NVC identified by the veterans consultation group. Those priorities were unanimously accepted by the group and were made known to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in May 2013 and October 2013.

The priority issues are as follows: the earnings loss benefit must be improved to provide 100% of pre-release income and be continued for life; the maximum disability award must be increased consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who received general damages in law court; and the current inequity with regard to the earnings loss benefit for class A and class B, which is less than 180 days' service, for reserve force members for service-attributable injuries must cease.

Although these are the clearly identified priority issues, as they impact on our most severely wounded, the CPVA has numerous other concerns with the NVC. CPVA had serious doubts leading up to the enactment of the NVC given its content and its shift to an insurance-based philosophy. We have made our concerns known over both the speedy passage of the NVC and the attendant lack of the usual parliamentary scrutiny during its passage.

Canadians, and especially the veterans community, were assured that the NVC is a living charter. This assurance, often repeated, led us to believe that the deficiencies of the charter would be addressed in a timely manner. Regrettably, our confidence was misplaced, because except for the passage of Bill C-55 in 2010, the many deficiencies in the NVC identified by this committee, the Veterans Ombudsman, various VAC advisory committees, and numerous veterans organizations still remain unresolved.

The three priority corrections to the NVC are the most important elements of progress toward an acceptable level of benefits for our most seriously injured veterans. However, there are related matters that need addressing as well. I have three of those, and I will detail them.

First, this is about the social covenant. In the NVC, the Government of Canada needs to clearly reaffirm to the public and to its veterans that it has a duty to its veterans and their families to look after their needs, with special emphasis on those who have been seriously injured as a result of their service.

Second, to make the NVC a truly living charter, a legislative process involving regular critical reviews of the NVC is required, reviews done with the goal of initiating necessary and timely changes to the NVC as and when required.

Third, much of the confusion, frustration, and animosity surrounding the NVC in the veterans community is caused by veterans not understanding the charter, with its often complicated regulations and attendant policies. It is incumbent on VAC to provide information about the NVC to veterans and their families in a form and with content that they can understand.

Three primary issues in the NVC need immediate corrective action in order to allow our most seriously wounded and injured veterans to live with dignity. The need to correct the ELB, the maximum disability award, and the inequity to injured reservists has been reinforced here today. It is clear from presentations made by most of the veterans organizations that the concerns expressed here today by the CPVA have a real consensus in the veterans community. With such strong collective agreement among veterans about these priorities, we strongly urge this committee, VAC, and the government to heed our call to action.

As well, the three related matters—Canada's duty to its veterans, the living charter, and understandable information about the NVC—cannot be ignored, as they are the basis for the operation of the charter and for ensuring it remains relevant.

The CPVA calls upon this committee, with its mandate, proven competency, and genuine concern for the welfare of Canada's veterans, to vigorously pursue the necessary steps required to bring about the essential changes to the NVC, changes that will allow Canada to fully meet its duty to treat our injured veterans fairly and to enable them to live with the dignity which they so richly deserve and which they have earned.

The CPVA is grateful for this opportunity to present its views on the NVC to this committee. We thank and commend this committee for all of its caring, dedicated, responsible, and extremely important and valuable work on behalf of veterans.

Thank you.

[Senator Roméo Dallaire]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, of this committee of enormous significance to so many people. Thank you for having the patience of inviting an older vet, a retired general who is busy at times on the other side of this Hill.

I am here very much to speak as a veteran, as a retired general officer, and a bit in my duties as a senator.

In so doing if I may I wish to give a bit of history. I'll go a little further than CNN history, though—which is last week—and then bring you into certain points that I would like to raise. Hopefully I will not overstep the bounds of how long I should speak, although brevity is not the strength of retired generals, so I'll work on that.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am appearing before you as a veteran to raise some issues surrounding the New Veterans Charter. I will provide you with some background and also put into perspective this charter you are studying in detail.

I congratulate you for undertaking this study and for taking the time to hear from many witnesses. When he appeared before your committee, the minister instructed you, I think, not to go on the ground, not to meet with veterans and their families in their communities. That decision should have perhaps been reconsidered, although we are often told that this type of initiative is expensive and time consuming.

As they say, once a veteran, always a veteran. For us, this is not a matter of time—on the contrary. It is a matter of having our needs met.

I would like to give this brief intro in the sense of telling you about this charter and some of its genesis. I know in reading the blues that General Semianiw gave you an extensive presentation on how it came about.

I wish only to bring out a couple of points on its genesis. The first point is that the charter did not appear because all of a sudden a bunch of bureaucrats decided that it was a way of solving a problem. The charter came about because of a fundamental need that was articulated by a multidisciplinary committee created originally by Admiral Murray, who was a deputy minister at the turn of the century, about 2000; and under the chairmanship of Dr. Neary, who wrote an extensive book on the 1943 original charter.

The multidisciplinary committee was advising the deputy minister and of course by extension, the minister, on the problematics of trying to apply the new Pension Act to a new generation of veterans. In so doing there were problems in its application, but also problems in being able to meet the demands of these young people versus the octogenarians whom the department had been more focused on.

So we were looking at a radical shifting of a government department into an area that they hadn't touched since 1940, 1950, where at that time the bulk of the veterans were 18, 19, 20, 23-year-olds, and of that age. That in itself was a significant trauma.

So that multidisciplinary team from different government departments, of different players, and also stakeholders provided significant input and produced the report called the Neary report in March of 2004.

I was able to participate in that as the representative of the ex-Canadian Forces veterans as we were articulating the gang since the end of the Cold War, and with Dr. Neary presented it here in this building in March of 2004 for consumption by the department, by veterans, and in support of reform.

The result of that was not necessarily what the Neary report was providing but was a sort of amalgam, a mixture of both some of the elements of the Neary report and extensive internal reviews and reorganizations being done by the department itself as it tried to cope with the problems and was looking at how to handle this influx since the early 1990s of a new generation of veterans.

What ended up, of course, is this bill. I am the one who squired it through the Senate, Bill C-45. I was three weeks on the job, but that was longer than the amount of time we spent studying it, which was 24 hours, and in so doing, the charter is an essential document of our time but it had a very significant caveat to it. It had to be a living document because we knew that we didn't have all the parameters of what the needs of the new generation of veterans would require, and also the needs of their families, which was instrumental in the argumentation behind the Neary report. You were not just now deploying members of the forces, you were essentially deploying their families also.

A quick anecdote is when I came back from Rwanda 20 years ago, my mother-in-law, who was still alive at the time, said she would have never survived World War II if she had had to go through what my family went through. My father-in-law commanded an infantry regiment in World War II. The whole country was at war. Information technology was very limited, but also censorship kept people pretty well away and separated from the actual war, from the conflict area, and so they knew very little.

However, with the revolution of communications that's been going on, and the ability of getting real-time reports, what we see now is the families continuously clicking on different channels as they are looking for what channel is going to report first who has been killed, injured, taken prisoner, or whatever, and so by the time we come back from those missions, we see a family who has also lived the missions. The families are now living the missions with the members. It is not a separated exercise. It is a marriage.

It's a communion between the two, and so any policy that doesn't reflect that communion is a policy that will have a fundamental flaw in it, and the fundamental flaw is you can't help the member and let the families be taken care of by somebody else, by another body, and hopefully they might even have a priority in their support. That dimension, which was supposed to be intrinsic in what we were hoping the legislation would be, is not there. You have a hard time finding “family” in this legislation.

However, with the legislation, it did give the government that came into power in January 2006 the ability to implement a whole new generation of tools that it felt was going to meet the requirement as per what the legislation was calling for. Just as a side point, both Dr. Neary and I were brought into P.E.I. three months before the legislation was presented, and we were informed about a series of recommendations on how the legislation would be changing things.

A number of those had absolutely nothing to do with what we had done before. The lump sum solution was never, ever raised in all the deliberations of the multidisciplinary committee that was advising the deputy minister, and there were a number of these things that were thrown in there that caught us by surprise, but we never got a chance to amend, to debate, to discuss, because it was too far down the road, and so it was simply implemented, but the caveat, which I come back to, was that it is a living document and the minister would be able to work with it.

Over the last years, we have seen one major intervention, which is Bill C-55.

I say “major” because it's the only one in significance as legislation—but it is not major, it's sort of that big to the demand. Even in that, there were elements of the legislation that the minister could have, by convincing his Treasury Board colleagues, implemented without having to go to legislation. But there are a few elements of legislation, which is the second component that I wish to mention about this charter.

We had recommended strongly that this charter has got to give power to the minister to amend the programs, to amend the directives, to not be hamstrung by enormous scales and volumes of regulations that require legislation. The aim was, as a living document, to give that minister, as long as he convinced his buddies at Treasury Board for the financial requirement and it was not offending any other act, the ability to get in there and change things in order to meet in a timely fashion the demands of the troops and their families. This legislation does not give him or her that much leeway. On the contrary, due to the scale of regulations in there, it is quite restrictive on the minister, which makes it very difficult for him or her to be able to bring about some of the changes that many committees have proposed.

You are aware that over five committees subsequently sat and hundreds of recommendations were produced. In fact, your committee, if I'm not mistaken, about a year and a half ago, if not two, looked at PTSD, or the mental health, and punched out a whole whack of these recommendations. These recommendations coming from these committees were essentially single-focused. Very few if any of those recommendations ever made it into the staffing of the bureaucracy, I'm afraid. In fact, the five leads of these committees never got a real response from the department as to their final recommendations as such. It was sort of given and then left there.

All this is to say that I'm trying to give a more strategic perspective to this document—and I am speaking here, I gather you picked up, not on the nuts and bolts of so many of the different programs and projects and directives. My strategic perspective is the fact that we absolutely need this charter amended. Not a new one, and not necessarily the Pension Act, but a charter that meets the requirement, as the requirement has evolved over the years, remembering, ladies and gentlemen, that we're covering now 25 years, 25 years more than since 2005, when it was brought in.... The whole new era of veterans started with the end of the Cold War and with the Gulf War. The Gulf War syndrome, and how we treated those people, is the perfect example of why we need a whole new set of tools as we really did not help those people. There are still walking wounded out there.

We're covering not Afghanistan alone. That's the culminating point of the last 25 years, in which the forces have been in the field, in operational theatres, hoping to come home on occasion to lick their wounds. We need that legislation to cover the full spectrum and to take care now of those forces that are back in garrison and are licking their wounds. In so doing, the scale of demand will continue to increase, not decrease—increase. The veterans of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Somalia are hitting their 60s and 65s and 70s. There is no long-term care significantly in the new charter, so you've got to cover the full spectrum. The covenant, which we proposed in 2004, said, “We inculcate loyalty into you, that uniform comes off, but that loyalty remains for a lifetime, for we have changed you culturally, and in so doing have a responsibility thereof”.

I have spoken already too long, and I didn't want to get into nuts and bolts, but I'm more than prepared to respond as best I can, Mr. Chair, to whatever questions you may have.

Former Canadian Forces Members Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-568, which was introduced by my colleague from Saint-Jean. I thank him for his excellent initiative.

This bill would ensure that all members of the Canadian Forces who were honourably discharged have access to long-term health care. My colleague has touched on an important topic with this bill.

Before I discuss the bill directly, I want to talk about some of the comments made by our colleagues on the government side. They are attacking the opposition, as did the parliamentary secretary. They said that we had a shameful record when it comes to veterans.

I think the government is projecting because its own record is shameful. The government has a dismal record when it comes to veterans, who do not receive proper treatment. The department's dismal record is a very long list. Not too long ago, departmental officials lashed out at veterans, which shows a complete lack of class. In my opinion, the government and several of its members have been arrogant. The list is very long.

Just recently, my colleague said that the government has invested $5 billion since 2006. That is government propaganda, because only $3.5 billion has been spent. The $5 billion amount was what was budgeted. It takes some nerve to not spend the money on our veterans and to claim that an additional $5 billion was spent, which is not true. The government is trying to balance the budget at the expense of our veterans. That is the government's record and veterans know better.

I would now like to get back to the excellent bill introduced by my colleague from Saint-Jean. As I mentioned, the government is off-loading its responsibilities towards veterans, for example, by wanting to close the last veterans' hospital, Ste. Anne's Hospital. The hospital will be transferred to the Province of Quebec by the end of 2014, provided there are no additional delays. The government is going to close the last hospital dedicated to long-term health care for veterans. That makes absolutely no sense.

Only veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War have access to long-term care. My colleague's bill would lift that restriction and give all veterans access to long-term care, no matter what war they participated in. Their service was no different from that of the veterans who fought in other wars. They deserve the same treatment.

Currently, Canadian Forces members only have access to beds in community facilities. Those beds are not specifically set aside or funded for veterans. Placement in the facility is based on health needs, as is the case for any other individual. Veterans' names are placed on the standard waiting list. Veterans Affairs Canada pays the bill once the veteran is given a spot.

Modern-day veterans have access to that type of bed, which unfortunately does not give them priority. Veterans Affairs Canada also provides reserved beds, but Canadian Forces veterans are not considered eligible, as it stands. My colleague's bill, Bill C-568, is designed to change that.

The government needs to admit that it has a responsibility and moral obligation to our veterans. Despite the fact that the government does not want to own up to that moral obligation, it still exists. The government has a legal obligation to take care of veterans, but the government is denying that obligation, which is completely appalling. That is the government's record. It does not acknowledge that it has a moral obligation to take care of veterans.

In my opinion, the respect that the government has for veterans is measured by the quality of services it provides to them. Our veterans deserve better. They do not deserve budget and service cuts like the ones they have been experiencing since 2012. The government is balancing the budget on the backs of veterans.

That year, government cuts totalled more than $250 million. Our veterans deserve to be treated with dignity. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

The government must fund long-term health care for modern-day veterans, as it did for those who served before 1953. It is about time that the government act on the Ombudsman's report entitled “Veterans' Long-Term Care Needs”.

Since 2006, our veterans have suffered the consequences of the Conservative government's lack of action and poor policies. The new veterans charter was passed in 2006 with the promise that it would be a living document and that it would be amended as problems emerged. However, the government has done absolutely nothing on that file.

The new veterans charter was amended only once, in 2011, by means of Bill C-55. Unfortunately, it only fixed a tiny fraction of the problems, which have been pointed out dozens of times in ombudsman reports and committee studies. The government has shirked its responsibilities by not making any changes, which is deplorable. That is part of the government's abysmal record on how it treats veterans. As I mentioned, the parliamentary secretary is projecting his own dismal record.

In 2012, the Conservatives used their majority to initiate a wave of cuts. They cut the Veterans Affairs Canada budget by $200 million thereby eliminating 800 jobs, not including the jobs that will be lost at Ste. Anne's Hospital when it is transferred to the province.

The government said that veterans would not see a reduction in service, which is not true. In fact, veterans are having more and more difficulty accessing the services they are entitled to. In short, the government did away with more than half of the jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada. The closure of nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices on January 31 only adds to this wave of cuts and reduced services for our veterans and, of course, to the government's pathetic track record in this regard.

Our veterans also need support. How can the government think that making $225 million in cuts will not result in reduced services? Veterans do not agree with what the government is doing, as evidenced by a study on the new veterans charter. Veterans want this government to take action. It is shameful that the government is once again turning its back on veterans by opposing this important bill introduced by my colleague from Saint-Jean.

The minister is talking out of both sides of his mouth. We saw this with the class action lawsuit filed by Equitas. He recently—and reluctantly—acknowledged the social pact that exists between the federal government and veterans. Unfortunately, however, he has shown no leadership on this. In the Equitas case, he should have told the prosecutor not to deny the existence of this social contract, but that is not at all what he did. He denied the existence of that social contract a few times, until he finally reluctantly acknowledged it recently. This complete lack of leadership is just one more example of this government's abysmal record in terms of how it treats our veterans.

In his report on veterans' long-term care, the ombudsman stated:

The very existence of so many...eligibility categories and the associated challenges entailed in establishing a veteran's eligibility...has been and remains a source of contention for both clients and...employees of Veterans Affairs Canada.

There is therefore a real need in the area of long-term health care. I am calling on my colleagues in the governing party to vote in favour of this important bill in order to support our modern-day veterans who have a right to access long-term health care.

[Brian Forbes]

I'll try not to take up the entire six minutes but within the NCVA organization we have what is called a legislative agenda. Obviously Mr. Henderson who is vice-chair is very familiar with this. In all the years I've been with the NCVA and the years that Mr. Chadderton was the chairman—I've been the chairman for the last five years—we've had a legislative agenda at our annual meeting, which is brought forward to all our membership. It's based on the input we get from the membership through the year and we adopt that legislative agenda. Of what I presented today 95% was sourced from that legislative agenda. All our member organizations had an opportunity to speak to it at our annual meeting, to amend it, and at the end of the day, adopt it. That is how the NCVA operates.

We have 60 member organizations; we have about 85% attendance at our meetings, which we're quite proud of. We have a very comprehensive protocol as far as our legislative agenda.

As far as prioritization, I must say, first of all I would share again the view that as a veterans consulting group you are probably familiar with the fact that we meet regularly. There are 20 organizations, we're one of them, the other two groups here are part of that group. We meet at the Legion, the Legion hosts the meetings, and we come together and create priorities.

I'm going to say something that is a little different today, which is we have been pursuing three priority issues, which Deanna identified in her submission earlier and I have touched on in my submission. We identified those two years ago. The reason I want to speak to this is that at that point the government was going through an economic recession. The government reaction to a lot of our proposals was that they didn't have the budget for that, they couldn't do that, they had to deal with the budget of the day, the economic crisis of the day. We cooperated to some degree. We limited our priorities to those three. We asked if they could at least do these three right away. We've waited for two years. We've not seen anything come from those three recommendations.

So when I brought my recommendations here today—and I have about 10 on my list if you're counting—it's a new world today. In 2015 we're facing a government that says they're going to have a budget surplus, hopefully the budget will be balanced in 2014. It's a different world. We'd like to get the charter right. We're a little tired of the one-off solutions of Bill C-55. Bill C-55. was an attempt to at least give the veterans a little something to placate them. It wasn't nearly sufficient. It didn't nearly address the proposals that were on the table. The Legion groups do have priorities, we do support them, but I would like to think your committee would go beyond that. I'd like to get this right. Let's get the charter right. We've had eight years to do it, let's get it right and stop doing incremental changes. That's my view on your questions.

Thank you.

[Deanna Fimrite]

Mr. Chairman, I believe your question was whether we were consulted about Bill C-55.

I wasn't in my position back then. My predecessor, Lorne McCartney, would have been the Dominion secretary-treasurer at that time. I would assume that if ANAVETS and the NCVA and the Legion and the other veterans organizations were consulted, we likely would have had different priorities from what you found in Bill C-55 at the time, but that is what came out of it.

So we would have been consulted, but—I cannot say this for certain, so you'd have to ask my predecessor—my guess would be that our priorities, as given at that consultation, would have been not quite the ones that came out in Bill C-55.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you for actually pointing that out. Obviously, the committee is mandated to conduct a review of Bill C-55. What the minister asked the committee to do was basically turn that into a comprehensive review of the whole new Veterans Charter, and that's exactly what we're doing today.

My next question is, can you tell us if your organization was involved or consulted during the process of Bill C-55 that was brought in in 2011?

[Deanna Fimrite]

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would concur with both my colleagues at this table that the work has been done in the past, and doing it over and over again seems redundant to many of the veterans' organizations.

We appreciate the fact that this committee was going to have to do a review on the enhanced new Veterans Charter in Bill C-55 anyway, and we appreciate that the minister created this more comprehensive look at all of the problems, but there could have been action alongside the review. That's what we would have hoped for, to have some of these items that we've been talking about for years actioned, and then continue to review it as required.

[Richard Blackwolf]

Honourable Chairman and honourable members, in closing, because the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act legislation was signed off by all political parties, Canadian aboriginal veterans feel that the honour of Parliament rests on the replacement of this flawed legislation.

We are asking for new legislation to implement a new Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, 2014. The new legislation would ideally be an amalgamation of the best features of past legislation; namely, the Pension Act; the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, 2006; and Bill C-55, the enhanced new Veterans Charter act.

The objective of our request for new legislation is to produce a world-class military service compensation and pension act that is fair and generous to all veterans, and especially those veterans with a lifetime disability.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, thank you for your time and attention.

[Deanna Fimrite, Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honour to represent Dominion President George Beaulieu, our executive, and the approximately 15,000 members of Canada’s most senior veterans association, The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, or ANAVETS for short. Our association has a long history of contributing to the consultation process with governments of the day in relation to services and benefits affecting the well-being of veterans, current serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as former members of the RCMP.

ANAVETS was a contributing stakeholder in all the committees and advisory groups leading up to and following the passing of the new Veterans Charter. We understood that as the traditional war veterans were aging, the programs and services were being adjusted to remain relevant with their changing needs. Conversely, these same programs and services were inadequate in addressing the needs of a new, younger generation of veterans.

The new Veterans Charter was to encompass a holistic approach to disability management and career transition and to encourage health and wellness for not only the veteran but the entire family. The new approach was to be easily adaptable to changing situations and requirements and, as such, was considered to be a living charter, which meant that as needs changed or we realized gaps in services and support, the legislation would be easily adjusted to remedy those shortcomings.

Unfortunately, in the eight years since the all-party passing of Bill C-45, the only enhancement of the legislation has been with Bill C-55, which delivered the minimum pre-tax income standard of $40,000 for earnings loss benefit, the introduction of the permanent impairment allowance supplement, and offered options to veterans on how to receive their disability award. There continue to be major shortcomings with the new Veterans Charter that have not been addressed, leaving veterans and veterans groups feeling duped with respect to the promised ongoing improvements to address gaps as they were discovered. To this end, we request that a biennial review of the charter be instituted to confirm the government’s resolve to truly make this a living charter.

It is of further concern that the legislation was written without the construction paragraph that can be found in the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, which is commonly referred to as the social covenant. In light of the comments made by government lawyers in the Equitas lawsuit, we request that the following paragraph be enshrined in the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. I will read that for you.

The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.;

This would put an end to the ongoing debate regarding the moral, social, legal, and fiduciary responsibilities that this nation’s citizens and its government have with regard to their commitment to the care of and compensation to veterans and their families. For those who were willing to write a blank cheque for up to and including their lives for this great nation, we owe them nothing less.

It is clearly understood that both rehabilitation and transition success is heavily correlated with financial stability. Injured veterans are much more likely to be able to concentrate on their rehabilitation program if they are not burdened with the concern over how they will be able to financially support themselves and their families. It is not surprising then that the most pressing priorities encompass issues of a financial nature.

In April 2013, the Veterans Consultation Group, consisting of 20 veterans groups, unanimously agreed that the following items needed to be the top priorities for immediate resolution. These priorities were reiterated by the same group in October 2013 and are issues that have also been identified by the veterans ombudsman’s report on the new Veterans Charter.

One, the earnings loss benefit must be increased to 100% of the pre-release salary and include provisions for loss of projected career earnings, be continued for life, and be indexed according to the consumer price index, removing the currently mandated 2% cap.

Two, the inequity of compensation paid to class A and B reservists with less than 180 days' service who receive injuries attributable to service cease.

Three, the maximum disability award be increased so that it is consistent with the amounts provided by a court of law to injured civilian workers.

These priorities remain unresolved and we implore this committee to recognize them in your deliberations as being the most vital items requiring immediate action.

The veteran’s ombudsman has provided a comprehensive set of reports including an actuarial analysis of the new Veterans Charter and has outlined the deficiencies with the programs and services provided therein. His review is unbiased, comprehensive, and fully supported by ANAVETS and we urge this committee to consider all of his recommendations in this comprehensive review. He has highlighted, as a major concern, the circumstances surrounding the most seriously injured veterans.

It is recognized that severely injured veterans may never have the ability to work permanently again. It is these veterans who are most vulnerable at the age of 65 when their earnings loss benefit is suddenly ended. A mere 2% retirement supplement is insufficient when over the years their income has been reduced to 75% of their salary, hampering their ability to save for their retirement years. Furthermore, although taxable, because the earning loss benefit is not considered earnings income, it does not give the option for continuing to contribute to the CPP, thereby reducing the amount of future income to be received upon reaching the age of 65 or 67.

It is therefore imperative that the totally and permanently incapacitated veterans be eligible to receive the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement. We are deeply concerned that the ombudsman has found that over half of veterans deemed totally and permanently incapacitated are not in receipt of the PIA and the supplement when, by Veterans Affairs' own definition:

A Veteran may be determined to be Totally and Permanently Incapacitated if the Veteran is assessed as not having the capacity to return to any occupation which can provide suitable, gainful employment as a result of the permanent health problem(s) for which the Veteran is eligible for the Rehabilitation Program.

The amount of PIA payable is based on the extent of the veteran's permanent and severe impairment, and the payment of the PIA supplement is based on whether the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated to the extent it prevents the veteran from performing any occupation that would be considered suitable, gainful employment.

In light of these similar definitions, it would be expected that all veterans who are considered totally and permanently incapacitated be automatically eligible for the PIA and PIA supplement. In addition, the attendance allowance and exceptional incapacity allowance should also be made available to severely injured veterans if required.

When a Canadian Armed Forces member becomes ill or injured the entire family unit is affected. In many cases spouses become caregivers or breadwinners and family dynamics change or break down. When dealing with mental health issues of a spouse or a parent, anxiety is often heightened and access to support systems becomes imperative. When transitioning from military to civilian life, there needs to be a continuum of care for the family members who are affected.

Military families often require short-term counselling, workshops, group therapy, child care, and referral services, all of which are available to them through the military family resource centres. After their family member releases from the forces, currently all of these supports are no longer accessible. Family members need to have access to counselling in their own right, as well as similar support services for child care, and respite care for those spouses who are giving full-time care to their injured partner.

In many cases, military spouses have given up career and education advancement to follow their husbands and wives as they received new postings and to raise children alone when duty called. When a CF member is seriously injured, it is often the spouse who becomes the full-time caregiver, further hampering their ability to work outside of the home. The Government of Canada needs to address these issues by offering respite care and compensation for full-time caregivers.

With the recent office closures and an overall reduction in front-line staff at Veterans Affairs Canada, there is a concern that the quality and timeliness of program delivery will suffer. This is an item that all veterans groups are watching closely.

The process in which members are transitioned from the care of the Department of National Defence to Veterans Affairs Canada requires continued harmonization, so that all transitioning members are acutely aware of the services available to them, and the eligibility, timeline, and required documents they need to access these programs and services. Adjustments to eligibility requirements and expansion of the timeline in which veterans and their families have to apply for the programs should be re-examined, in order to ensure that undue hardship is not put on these members at a time when they are ill and unable to handle the pressure of time constraints and unnecessary bureaucracy.

To conclude, in order to truly ensure that our servicemen and women are able to successfully transition from a life of service to country, to a fulfilling life of civilian employment, we need to invest in their future. By making certain that they have the financial stability to concentrate on their health and vocational training, we can ensure that they are well-equipped to start a new and fulfilling career. For those who have received injuries that preclude them from that ability, we must ensure that they and their families are cared for and compensated in a manner such that their quality of life, as near as possible, be no worse off than had the injury never occurred.

Since the introduction of the new Veterans Charter in 2006, there have been many reports issued from advisory groups, stakeholders, and parliamentary and senate committees highlighting over 200 recommendations on the necessary improvements needed for the new Veterans Charter. Add to that the comprehensive review and recommendations put forth in the ombudsman's report, and there is a clear road map for improvement. Now is the time for action.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Brian Forbes]

Good.

Mr. Chairman, I believe you have our submission. I'll try to go through it as quickly as I can, but there are important parts to it that I'd like to emphasize.

As a matter of background, upon the enactment of the charter in 2006 the government declared that the legislation represented a “living charter” and made a formal commitment to the veterans' community that as gaps and inequities were identified, immediate remedial action would be taken to address these deficiencies. Unfortunately, the government has largely failed to fulfill this commitment with regard to a significant number of substantive issues impacting upon the financial security and compensation benefits of disabled veterans in violation, in our opinion, of the social covenant that the Canadian people owe to our veterans and their families.

Through the consultation process that led to the enactment of the charter, it was recognized by all veteran stakeholders and indeed, I would suggest, by the government itself that the veterans charter was an imperfect document. I would underline that the government commitment to address inequities was fundamental to the acceptance of the charter by the veterans community. There has been some misunderstanding of this over the years, but that was the process. The commitment to alter, the commitment to identify mistakes and flaws and rectify them, was fundamental. I'm sure everyone at this end of the table would agree.

Recent studies, including that of the new Veterans Charter advisory group of 2009, this standing committee's report in 2010, which was entitled “A Timely Tune-up for the Living New Veterans Charter”, and the recent ombudsman's report of October 2013 clearly identify the self-evident inadequacies of the new Veterans Charter.

Mr. Chairman, we can summarize those deficiencies as follows.

First is the financial instability and decreased standard of living caused by reduced post-military release income and insufficient financial support after the age of 65 for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. I'm sure you've had many witnesses who have talked to that point.

Second, the unduly restrictive application of the permanent impairment allowance provisions of the charter unreasonably constrains the number of disabled veterans who are able to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement for this important allowance.

Third, there is the insufficiency of the lump sum disability award in its failure to parallel the non-economic awards that are awarded by the Canadian courts.

Fourth, there are the limitations in vocational rehab and educational funding, which impact on secondary career aspirations and employment options for veterans.

Fifth, there is inadequate support to address difficult family environment scenarios as a consequence of military service.

Mr. Chairman, the government's inertia in relation to this list of well-established concerns is simply unacceptable to the veterans community. The government has done a number of things over the last eight years, but they have done nothing to substantially change the charter in these major categories of concern, except in a brief effort with regard to Bill C-55.

The NCVA has consistently demanded over the last number of years that Veterans Affairs implement an overall plan of action to fulfill its commitment not only to reforming the charter, but also to dealing with other outstanding issues impacting on seriously disabled veterans and their health care.

In accordance with the fundamental conclusions of the aforementioned studies, it continues to be our position that, notwithstanding the ostensible economic constraints that have faced the country over the last few years, the seriously disabled veterans should be given immediate priority in the implementation of the first phase—and I emphasize “the first phase”—of VAC's plan of action for legislative reform.

In our opinion, there is no higher obligation on Veterans Affairs Canada and the veterans community than the responsibility to address the requirements of seriously disabled veterans and their families. In this regard, we take the position that budgetary restraints should never be a consideration in satisfying the needs of the seriously injured or the permanently incapacitated. In the NCVA's view, immediate implementation of a comprehensive course of action to legislate charter reform, pursuant to the recommendations of the various advisory groups—this standing committee, this standing committee's report of four years ago, and the veterans ombudsman's report of October—would represent an important step towards meeting the controversy surrounding the much-maligned lump sum disability award through these proposed enhancements of the complementary benefit and the income support programs in the current legislation.

We have encouraged the new minister, Minister Fantino, and his predecessors to get out in front of the significant criticisms of the charter with such a plan of action and to adopt a proactive approach vis-à-vis this committee review that is presently taking place.

Given the significant and exhaustive studies already completed on charter reform over the last five years, it was our expectation indeed that the minister would be in a position to present recommendations to this committee as part of your evaluation.

The minister appears to be suggesting to the committee that he wishes to hear your views before he's prepared to initiate any action. It seems to me that the time for action is long overdue.

Based on the consensus of all of these advisory group proposals and the unanimous position of the 60-member organizations of the NCVA, in our judgment these further reforms to the charter should include the following. If I may, let me touch on these, Mr. Chairman.

First, the SISIP long-term disability program should be eliminated to eradicate the insurance culture constraints presently contained in the charter. It is to be noted that at the time of the enactment of the charter, VAC committed that as a fundamental precondition to the passage of the legislation, the SISIP LTD program would be eliminated as soon as possible so as to remove the restrictions that were inherent to the overall income replacement program. That was again a fundamental commitment to our acceptance of the charter in 2006.

In this regard, the earnings loss benefit should be increased to 100% of pre-release income and in relation to permanently incapacitated veterans be paid for life and not terminated at 65, as is currently the case.

In addition, the projected career earnings of a Canadian Armed Forces member should be employed as the standard for the payment of the earnings loss benefit. In this context, VAC should adopt the approach utilized by the Canadian courts in assessing the concept of future loss of income, which specifically addresses the projected lifetime earnings lost by a plaintiff in a personal injury claim.

Mr. Chairman, we're often talking about what model we should be following under the charter. We talk about the Pension Act, we talk about disability insurance programs, we talk about workers compensation. Why don't we talk about what the courts do? The courts look at all of these features. Yes indeed: they have a lump sum award as general damages, they have a future loss of income projection, and a future care cost element.

It's the future loss of income parallel that I'd like to propose to this committee to consider seriously as the model. We can talk about it later, if you'd like.

I might just say that as an interim measure, one of the problems we have confronted over the last number of years is that the SISIP program is administratively very difficult to extract from the system. If that continues to be the case, we are proposing that there be a top-up; that Veterans Affairs top up the insurance policy— bump the coverage from 75% to 100%, change the termination date from the age of 65 to the end of life, and get rid of the COLA cap. There is a 2% COLA cap under SISIP of which you may or may not be aware, which hasn't had any impact because inflation hasn't been quite as rampant as it normally is. But 2% is the cap.

The idea of applying the future career projected loss of income is something that can be put in as a VAC element to the SISIP policy. We obviously would like to see the policy eliminated, but it has been eight years. It's time to do something as a solution by way of a top-up.

The restrictions and complexities of the permanent impairment allowance guidelines should be addressed, so as to allow greater numbers of disabled veterans to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement for this important allowance.

We have noted in our submission, Mr. Chairman, that the PIA was intended to be a fundamental component of the financial security and compensation package contained in the charter in relation to seriously disabled veterans. In effect, the objective of the allowance was to address the loss of career earnings suffered by a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran.

As evidenced by the findings of the recent veterans ombudsman’s report, the restrictive application of the PIA by Veterans Affairs has led to the conclusion that this significant allowance has largely failed to fulfill its purpose.

Statistics developed by the ombudsman demonstrate that more than 50% of seriously disabled veterans have not qualified for PIA, which is shocking. Of those veterans who have been granted PIA, 90% have been awarded the lowest grade, grade 3. In effect, that means, with a $20,000 allowance, that 90% of the most seriously disabled are only getting $6,000 to $7,000. It was meant to be much more.

Something that should be noted as well is that for the enhanced permanent impairment allowance you have to qualify for the primary PIA before you get the enhanced version, which means that if you don't make the first grade, you don't make the second grade. That, to us, is absolutely contrary to the intent of the legislation.

We have spent considerable time in this submission talking about our proposal. I won't read it all; I'd just refer you to it, on page 4. It basically talks in terms of a simplification of this PIA allowance.

Why don't we simply look at the disability award of the veteran? If the veteran has a 70% or more disability award, then give them a grade 1 PIA. Don't force them to go through applications, don't force them to get medical reports. He's a primary class A seriously disabled veteran, permanently incapacitated. Do we really have to ask such a veteran to go through a process to get a grade 1 PIA? I don't think so.

From 48% to 78%, a grade 2 would be automatically awarded. In this way, we would be in a position to actually take away the complexities of the allowance and create an administratively efficient solution. As I've concluded in our brief, this would allow PIA to satisfy its original objective as conceived under the charter.

Quickly, the lump sum disability award should be increased, as I mentioned earlier, to be commensurate with what's paid in the Canadian courts. The differential now is approximately $50,000 between the two. In our opinion, there is no justification for a lower amount being paid to a disabled veteran who is severely injured in the service of his country. Why should a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident be entitled to $50,000 more in general damages compared to a veteran who was seriously injured in Afghanistan?

Educational benefits should also be expanded to both of the rehab provisions of the charter so as to address the vocational and occupational constraints faced by many returning veterans with serious service-related disabilities.

We do commend the minister for his announcement of last October where he bumped, in effect, the VOC rehab program to a $75,000 cap for individuals, which is a substantial increase.

Our only concern is that there are so few veterans who are granted eligibility for educational grants. In the process of the veterans ombudsman's study, they discovered that only 31 veterans since the year 2000 have been granted an educational eligibility. There have been 32 under the SISIP program. If we're going to effectively recognize that education is a serious requirement for a seriously disabled veteran then the system has to give that recognition.

The last concern is on compensation: the discrimination that currently exists with reference to specific classes of reservists, particularly those who are seriously disabled, should be eliminated in the charter and also in the SISIP provisions.

With regard to family concerns, we have two recommendations. In order to recognize the caregiving requirements that many disabled veterans confront to cope with their incapacities, the attendance allowance provisions of the Pension Act should be added to the charter in recognition of the financial costs faced by many families.

And lastly, the charter should acknowledge that veterans with dependants—those who have family members who are dependent on them— should receive a higher level of compensation either through the augmentation of the lump sum disability award or an increase in the earnings loss benefit for such veterans and their families.

Many of you will know that the Pension Act does recognize that distinction. Under the Pension Act, if you have a spouse or you have dependent children, you get more pension. We don't recognize that under the charter and that is of concern.

If I could conclude, Mr. Chair, we commend the minister for his immediate commitment upon receipt of the ombudsman's report to effectively initiate this review that you are now all participating in. We do commend the minister on his emphasis that the most seriously injured, support for families, and the delivery of programs by VAC are important priorities.

However, in our judgment, the aforementioned proposed reforms have been studied and studied to death, Mr. Chairman, and analyzed for many years, such that the gaps and voids have been readily identified by all of the advisory groups, by your committee, and by the ombudsman in the recent report.

In our considered opinion, it is long overdue for VAC to become proactive and implement remedial legislation to address those well-established concerns and live up to its obligation under the social covenant to Canada's veterans and their dependants.

For a government that professes to support our military, the lack of substantive action to reform the charter is truly unacceptable and represents a betrayal of the government's commitment to the veterans' community.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for taking longer than I should have.

[Michael Blais]

Well, they're experiencing great distress. It's almost uncomfortable for me to speak of this because when I help people who are in distress like that—and we're talking about Memorial Cross widows—when they don't feel that their government has provided the empathy and compassion and understanding they need, it's difficult to fight. We have fought, and let me summarize.

Here's where we have a problem, and this is why I've said “all Memorial Cross widows” should be entitled. I mentioned Mrs. Joan Larocque at the time. Her husband died in 2005 at a point in time where the new Veterans Charter had been voted on, but not enacted. There was a gap there, and at that time, as you know, Veterans Affairs pensions were considered in the equation of income adjustments, right? As you know, through the SISIP lawsuit, those Veterans Affairs Canada pain and suffering awards are no longer allowed into that equation. Conversely, just recently, or in Bill C-55, we also brought in a $40,000 anti-poverty threshold, which we have identified correctly. I think, once again, if you're looking for a credo, there's another good one, identifying a poverty threshold, identifying a need for basic shelter, food, and clothing. We're not talking about Cadillacs here; we're talking about basic essentials.

Well, we have a situation where Mrs. Larocque is not being covered by the new Veterans Charter. She is being denied, even though her average mean income is under $30,000 a year. Now, come on, we all know how difficult it is to live on under $30,000. Maybe you don't, but I do, and I'm telling you, it's not fun. There are issues there, and for a woman, alone, who has sacrificed so much on behalf of this nation, we can harmonize this.

Here we go on harmonization. Well, good thing, new Veterans Charter; bad thing, Pension Act—harmonize, bring these widows into the fold. There aren't many of them, but we have an obligation to them that is very high, and it's probably one of the highest things that we can do. That's why we have the Memorial Cross. That's why we respect our widows and mothers on Remembrance Day, and every day of the year. But there's a lack there, and it's time to fix it.

[Ronald Cundell]

I did deal with the fallout from Bill C-55 in our virtual community.

As I told you, it's a website, open forum, so people could have input. The input was that you're not living up to the way you sold the new Veterans Charter to us. It's not a living document. We're going on nine years and you've only done three improvements, three. That is not a living document. If it is, pull out the paddles, because it's time to bring it back to life.

The ombudsman's report is thorough, in the present and in the now. Then after you write your report and the implementations are done, there are going to be other problems; hence, it's classified as a living charter, as told to us by Mr. Stoffer, consulted by Mr. Stagg, when they brought this out in 2005. It's a living charter.

As I said, you are acting in a procrastinating manner. You're not turning it out fast enough. The veteran community is very upset at the lack of efficiency of these committees and the way you're ignoring our ombudsman, who is methodically going through this in a non-partisan manner.

[Dr. Alice Aiken]

As we started CIMVHR, I personally was involved in the original analysis of Bill C-55, specifically as it pertained to special needs veterans. Those are people who are deemed to have a disability over 78%, as disabilities go. Is that terminology familiar to everybody?

Prior to that, in my academic capacity, I had sat on the special needs advisory group to the Department of Veterans Affairs, specifically to the new Veterans Charter advisory group. At that time, we certainly found that the financial benefits were not equivalent for seriously disabled veterans, which is 1% of the veteran population, but they are the most seriously disabled. We found that the financial benefits were not equivalent.

In terms of supporting or not supporting the review, once again I would ask that you turn back to the evidence and to what you're hearing from the constituent populations. I think the ombudsman's reports as well are excellent and well done.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I also want to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee and helping us with this important study.

My question is basically for all of you. The committee has been asked by Minister Fantino to conduct this comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter as it has evolved and as it is prescribed today. Above and beyond the mandatory review of Bill C-55, understanding that we have a very diverse panel of witnesses with us this afternoon, can you tell us if your respective organization called for a comprehensive review, and do you support the committee's comprehensive review of the charter as a whole?

My second question is, to what extent were your organizations involved in the consultation process on Bill C-55?

Let's go down the line.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Were there any recommendations put forward by your organizations that were adopted in Bill C-55?

[Brad White]

Overall, I think you're asking a question about Bill C-55 and the involvement of stakeholders—I don't like that term—the organizations in the consultation process.

First off, I don't think the consultation process has been adequate over the years. It needs to be improved, overall. There was a bit, but little consultation involved with Bill C-55.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you.

Can you tell us to what extent your organizations were involved in the consultation process for Bill C-55 if any?

[Brad White]

Going back to Mr. Stoffer's first question about what the recommendations were, if you look back all the way through, you've had the Gerontological Advisory Council, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group. You've had this committee. You've had the Senate subcommittee. You've had input from all the various recommendations and organizations of veterans, as well as other medical people. You've had the ombudsman. We've had lots of recommendations put forward for enactment.

Do we support a full review of the new Veterans Charter? Yes, we do.

As comrade Gord said in his preamble, we'd like a review every two years. But in essence, the whole charter should be reviewed continuously, to make sure that the services provided to the veterans are in fact being provided to the veterans.

The reason we have difficulty, and we go back to the first question of Mr. Stoffer, is that there are lots of recommendations on the table right now. They've been there for quite a while. In 2011, when Bill C-55 came in, there was no movement to make this a living charter. The charter has to live. It has to breathe and it has to evolve. The circumstances we're putting our men and women of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP in—but the RCMP is not covered here—around the world is evolving, and we need to evolve that support for them as well, as we put those people in those circumstances.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the veterans in the room today for your service towards our country and also our witnesses, for appearing before the committee and helping us with this very important study.

Minister Fantino has asked our committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter as it evolved and as it's prescribed today.

Above and beyond the mandated review of the enactment, enhancement enacted by Bill C-55 in 2011, did your respective organizations call for a comprehensive review? Do you support the committee's comprehensive review of the charter as a whole?

[Gordon Moore, Dominion President, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to appear in front of your committee this afternoon. I'm pleased to be able to speak to you this afternoon on behalf of more than 320,000 members and their families.

The Royal Canadian Legion is well situated to address the impact and the effectiveness of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly known as the new Veterans Charter, as well as the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, as a result of Bill C-55.

The Royal Canadian Legion is the only veteran's organization that assists veterans and their families with representation to Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have been assisting veterans since 1926 through our legislative mandate in both the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter. Our 23 professional service officers are located across the country and provide free assistance to veterans and their families with obtaining benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada. Please note that you do not have to be a Legion member to avail yourself of our services.

Our national service officer network provides representation starting with first applications to Veterans Affairs Canada through all three levels of the VRAB. Through the legislation, the Legion has access to service health records and departmental files to provide comprehensive yet independent representation at no cost. Last year our service officers prepared and represented disability claims on behalf of almost 3,000 veterans to VAC and also to VRAB. Over 75% of these veterans received benefits under the new Veterans Charter.

Additionally, we met with more than 12,000 veterans and their families from across the country regarding VAC benefits and services. There is no other veterans group with this kind of direct contact, interaction, provision of support, and feedback from veterans, their families, and also the caregivers. l believe we can speak confidently and with credibility regarding the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. Our comments will address specifically the requirement for mandatory review, the obligation of the Government of Canada to our veterans and their families, specific deficiencies, and finally, the requirement for effective communication of the programs and services to support our injured veterans and their families.

Starting with the requirement for mandatory review, in 2006 the new Veterans Charter was adopted without a clause-by-clause review in parliamentary committee and in the Senate, because of a perceived urgent need to better look after younger veterans and their families and to facilitate their transition to civilian life. The government made a commitment to continuously review and evaluate the programs and services, and if necessary, to amend the legislation to address emerging needs or unanticipated consequences under the spirit of a living charter.

The Legion supported the introduction of the new Veterans Charter on the basis that it would be a living charter and improvements would be made when required. In 2011, almost five years later, the first real changes occurred with Bill C-55 and the implementation of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. Despite these changes, there are still shortcomings in the programs of the new Veterans Charter, which are designed to assist veterans and their families with their transition to civilian life.

In Bill C-55, section 20.1 of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, it states:

Within two years after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of this Act must be undertaken by any committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that are designated or established by the Senate and the House of Commons for that purpose.

While the government promised that the new Veterans Charter would be a living charter and that its ongoing improvement would be an enduring priority for the government, the first real change came after five years of addressing deficiencies, and significant deficiencies still remain. If it is a living charter, then the government must live up to its commitment.

We urge the government to institute a regular two-year charter review to demonstrate to veterans and their families the government's commitment and promise that it made to our veterans, and the obligation of the Government of Canada, which is at the heart of this discussion.

Turning to the moral obligation, the Legion is concerned that the government has forgotten the moral obligation to look after veterans and their families who have been injured as a result of their service to Canada. The government put them in harm's way; now the government has an obligation to look after them. This obligation on the part of the Government of Canada is stated clearly in the preamble to the Pension Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, but not in the new Veterans Charter.

This recognized obligation must be stated and reaffirmed in the new Veterans Charter. Our veterans need to know that when they are injured as a result of their military service, the government will provide the resources, tools, and care to ensure a successful transition to civilian life. It is as simple as that.

Effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter and enhanced new Veterans Charter.... In 2013, the Veterans Ombudsman of Canada delivered a series of comprehensive reports on the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter, which focused on the financial compensation, the complexity, and the limitations of the vocational rehabilitation programs for our injured veterans, and the care of their families.

Based on his findings, the Veterans Ombudsman called for urgent action to address the key shortcomings. Number one is the insufficiency of the economic financial support after age 65 to eligible totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. This is a small number of the most vulnerable of our veterans. It is unacceptable that veterans and their families, who have sacrificed for this country, live their lives with insufficient financial means.

Number two is the drop in income for veterans after release from the Canadian Armed Forces. The earnings loss benefit provides only 75% of the pre-release salary.

Number three, access for those severely impaired veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for a permanent impairment allowance and the supplement is complicated, and there are difficulties accessing these benefits.

Number four, it's unfair that the former part-time reserve force members who have been injured attributable to their service, receive a reduced earnings loss benefit.

Number five, the compensation for the pain and suffering related to a service-related injury or illness, the disability award, has not kept pace with the compensation provided to our disabled civilian workers who receive general damages from the courts. These same issues have been at the forefront of the Legion advocacy as mandated by the delegates at our Dominion conventions in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

Additionally, in May 2013, the veterans consultation group, which includes 20 veteran organizations, sent a letter to the then Minister of Veterans Affairs raising similar priorities. This deserves highlighting—20 veterans groups were unanimous in their position.

More recently in October 2013, the same veterans consultation group reinforced these priorities to the government. The group unanimously agreed that it was time for this government to have a heroic moment and do what is right for our veterans and their families. The veterans groups, the Veterans Ombudsman of Canada, the new Veterans Charter advisory group, and this very committee have all stated since 2006 that the government must resolve, as a matter of priority, the key financial deficiencies of the new Veterans Charter.

These are the same issues identified by the Veterans Ombudsman in his recent reports. There is consistency and agreement but there has been no action. Now is the time for action. Within this context, the Royal Canadian Legion continues to assess the top three issues requiring immediate resolution by the government. These are: number one, the earnings loss benefit must be improved to provide 100% of the pre-release income and be continued for life; number two, the maximum disability award must be increased and consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who received general damages in a law court; and number three, the current inequity with regards to ELB for class A and class B reserve force members for service-attributable injuries must cease.

Mr. Chairman, it's time to take action on these three key issues. At the same time, the Legion calls upon the government to expedite the review of the new Veterans Charter. We recognize the importance of a transparent and open review. It is important that veterans groups, veterans and their families, and subject matter experts have the opportunity to provide evidence to this review.

The Legion agrees with the deficiencies identified in the Veterans Ombudsman's report “Improving the New Veterans Charter”. The reports are well researched, evidence-based, and informed by actuarial, independent analysis, and as such, should be used as the baseline for the parliamentary review.

This is a focused road map with achievable recommendations. The Veterans Ombudsman also uncovered a glaring gap that needs immediate action. There are approximately 400 veterans deemed totally and permanently incapacitated who are not in receipt of any allowances. This means the new Veterans Charter's permanent impairment allowance and supplement or the Pension Act's attendance allowance or exceptional incapacity allowance should apply to these veterans.

While they are in receipt of the earnings loss benefit, it is a monthly income that ends at the age 65. When these veterans, who have been injured attributable to their service reach 65, their income will substantially be reduced. This is an urgent problem as these are the most vulnerable, seriously disabled veterans who are at risk of living their retirement years in poverty. This is unacceptable and needs urgent action.

Finally, I want to address the issue of communication and accessibility. Why are we still having a conversation about which is better, the Pension Act or the new Veterans Charter? The new Veterans Charter was developed to meet the needs of the modern veteran. It's based on modern disability management principles and focuses on rehabilitation and successful transition.

I will state that the Legion has never completely endorsed the new Veterans Charter as it was presented in 2006. We've been steadfast in our advocacy for its change to better meet the lifelong needs of our veterans and their families. However, it's time to stop the rhetoric and focus on the issue. We have an obligation to understand the complexities and interrelationships, and inform about and explain the new Veterans Charter. Our veterans and their families deserve nothing less.

The new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act are comprehensive and complex. Our veterans and their families need to know what programs are available to assist them and how to access them: financial, rehabilitation, health services, and family care. The government needs to ensure the resources and programs are in place to meet their needs. The government needs to review the accessibility to these programs and ensure that front-line staff are available and knowledgeable in order to assist veterans and their families. This must not be a self-serve system.

The Legion was gravely concerned when General Rick Hillier, former Chief of the Defence Staff, in the CTV News network Remembrance Day telecast on November 11, 2013, stated as follows, regarding the new Veterans Charter: “That needs to be rewritten completely because it does not look after our veterans, particularly over a long period of time.”

Further, he stated that the lump sum may seem to be significant, “but a 22-year-old soldier who has lost both of his legs and is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is still going to be without his legs 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years from now”. He said, “They're still going to be suffering somewhat from PTSD and they're going to need support throughout that time. And the veterans charter does not do it.”

Most Canadians have this understanding of the new Veterans Charter as well. I would suggest that this understanding highlights the ineffectiveness of the government's communication of the programs and services available in the new Veterans Charter for our injured veterans and their families.

Lastly, it highlights that it's time for this government to start communicating and to proactively reach out to all veterans across the country and ensure that they're aware of the financial compensation, rehabilitation programs, health care services, and family care programs that are available and how to access them.

It's also time for us to understand the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. This should be a priority. Our veterans need to know not only the weaknesses but also the strengths behind the legislation, the programs, and the services and benefits. We too can help our veterans and their families.

In summary, this review is about the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has conducted the most comprehensive research and analysis work undertaken on the new Veterans Charter. The analysis is done. It's thorough and unbiased. Mr. Parent personally tested his recommendations with most of the veterans organizations and stakeholders. It is consistent with recommendations since 2006.

Use this report as the blueprint for action. The path to improving the new Veterans Charter is clear. Let us not be focused on issues on the periphery. I urge you to stick to the critical core issues, as these impact the day-to-day lives of our veterans and their families. I encourage you not to delay but to expedite this review and take real action.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Forces

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to answer the question from the Conservative MP. If he honestly believes that a new budgetary framework will come in for Veterans Affairs, then it should be introduced in a government bill like it was with Bill C-55, which we fully supported. In lumping this into an overall budget with thousands of other spending items and cuts and everything else, we would have to express confidence in the government. I can assure members it will be a long day before we in the NDP ever express confidence in the government.

Today we heard him talk about a very important motion brought in by my colleague. It is an honour, and at the same time there is a bit of sadness, that we bring this to the floor of the House of Commons. Veterans should not have to fight and struggle to get the benefits they so rightly deserve. They have already fought for this country. It is their country, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of government or opposition, that owes them the ultimate and unlimited responsibility, because they have the unlimited liability. The military, the RCMP, and their families deserve no less.

Let us go over a bit of the track record of the current government. The reality is that it took a five-year lawsuit to settle the SISIP clawback, the insurance payment clawback that was being deducted from disabled veterans. It took a ruling from Judge Barnes. It forced the government into an $888 million lawsuit. If the Conservatives had listened to us many years ago, it would have been settled; there would have been less angst among the members of the veterans community, and it would have saved the government and the taxpayer a lot of money. However, they did not.

Now what happens? They are now taking RCMP disabled veterans to court on the exact same type of issue. There are over 1,200 people in a class action lawsuit against the government right now. They have been asked by the RCMP and their families, by the Royal Canadian Legion, and by us repeatedly, to stop the court proceedings, work with the legal team and the RCMP veterans and give them the respect, dignity and payment they so rightly deserve. Their answer is that they are going to go to the courts.

There is another lawsuit going on, with Equitas, against the government, over certain aspects of the new veterans charter. What did the crown attorneys presenting the case for the government say in that lawsuit? These are smart lawyers. They get their directions directly from the government. They indicated that there is no fiduciary or social moral responsibility for the veterans community; that only applies to the aboriginal community. I am paraphrasing.

The members of the veterans community were outraged when they heard this. I have asked the minister and the government on six separate occasions whether they do or do not have a moral, legal, social and fiduciary responsibility to care for those they put in harm's way. What do we get? Absolute silence.

We should not have been too surprised when we saw what happened the other day. I know the minister, deep down, probably regrets what happened. I am sure that he does. However, the reality is that it happened. This type of conduct has happened with veterans across the country for sixteen and a half years, through ten different ministers and from two different parties. What I witnessed the other day was the lowest of the low. That is why we had no choice. They brought in the so-called Veterans Bill of Rights, which we knew was toothless because there is no punishment. If they break a certain element of the Veterans Bill of Rights, they just say they are sorry and they move on. However, every single day of the year our veterans, RCMP, and their families, deserve the utmost respect, dignity and courtesy.

It is our job, whether in government or in opposition, to listen to their concerns. We may not like what they are telling us. We may not like the manner in which they are telling us. However, we get paid very well, and ministers get paid even better, to listen to those concerns. It is our responsibility. We could not sit here if it were not for the sacrifice of the men and women who put on the uniform, and their families, and that of the RCMP who serve us in Canada.

Veterans have unlimited liability. That means they are willing to risk their lives so that you and I can be here, Mr. Speaker. We, again, have the ultimate responsibility for their needs and that of their families, all the way to and including their headstones.

A while back the government presented a budget and said it was going to spend millions more dollars on the Last Post Fund. However, it did not change the litmus test of who could qualify for that fund. Service members who make $12,000 or less may qualify for proper burials, but those who make over that limit do not qualify. Even though the government put more money into it, two-thirds of the applicants are still denied and the Conservatives refuse to correct that.

On the issue of the closure of offices, I want to tell the people of Canada and the Conservatives right now that when they are kicked out of office in the next election, we in the NDP will reopen those offices and make them better, so they provide better services to the men and women who serve our country.

There is something else the government is doing, and many people are unaware of this. When the last Korean overseas veteran passes away, all of the contract service beds across this country will be finished, aside from rare exceptions. Right now the Perley, Camp Hill, the Belcher and other hospitals across the country that service veterans are subsidized by the federal government. When the last Korean veteran dies, the modern-day veterans from 1954 onward will no longer have access to those beds paid for by the federal government.

The federal government is downloading this responsibility onto the backs of the provinces. The previous Minister of Veterans Affairs said that health care was a provincial responsibility. I remind the government that the care and treatment of veterans, RCMP members and their families is a federal responsibility, and to download that to the provinces is unacceptable. In Nova Scotia alone, a $41 million download will happen in the near future. It is unacceptable when we see floors of hospitals being closed for veterans and being transferred over to provincial uses.

The men and women who serve our country deserve no less. They deserve to have the best treatment. As Rick Mercer once said, when we take them from heaven on earth, which is Canada, and send them over to hell on earth, we should give them a gold card and make sure we give them platinum service when they come back.

There are many veterans I deal with who are getting very good service from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is true, and I compliment the workers of the department who are providing that service. However, the problem is that many others are not getting that service. There are approximately 700,000 men and women who retired from the military who have dependant spouses and the DVA has a client base of just over 200,000, so more than two-thirds of that base is not being serviced now. Many of them do not require the services, but they may one day, and many more veterans are coming online.

I want to highlight two of my constituents, Kim and Blair Davis. They have given me permission to do this. The minister's office knows this file very well, because a few months ago I held an open press conference with the Davises. He had a serious brain injury from a LAV rollover accident and explosion that killed a few of his buddies. He has had major operations and is suffering severely from psychological problems, including PTSD and others. He has not asked for the government to give him a Rolex watch or a trip to Florida, but for basic rehabilitation services. He has asked for things like VIP service to help him, his wife and his family.

Several months went by and I got an email from him yesterday saying, “I am at my wit's end with this government. I simply do not know where to turn. Please, please help me and my family”. When a press conference is held, the government says it is going to look after the family and do all sorts of things, and two and a half months later I get an email saying it has not done anything yet. This is indicative of a government that simply is not listening.

In my final words, I will implore the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence to please stop the cuts to these departments and hire the mental health workers that are required. The government can pump money in, but if there is a bureaucracy delaying the hiring of these mental health workers, it is simply not working. I implore these two fine men to please get off their chairs and do something in a rational, speedy manner so that the men and women who serve our country in the RCMP and the military and their families will get the respect and dignity they so rightfully deserve.

[Kevin Berry]

With Bill C-55 they brought the bottom up to $40,000.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chisu.

Now we'll move on.

I'll take the liberty as the acting chair to ask my questions, but I won't have any questions; I'll just make a statement for all of you. I'm making a statement because I honestly feel that the aspect of the charter, how it came about, and the causes of it, are sometimes misunderstood by people in my own party and others.

There are three people in this room who were here when the charter was voted on, but there's only one person who was there when it was being negotiated. That was me, along with the late deputy Jack Stagg. In order to get the New Democratic Party's support, we had to have a thorough review and understanding of every aspect of the charter. The process of the charter had been going on for years. The process was done in earnest in 2004 and 2005, in the middle of the Afghan conflict, after we had already lost the four guys at Tarnak Farms, two of whom came from the area where I live.

The aspect of the charter was that it was a living document. The six major veterans groups and all the political parties at that time were convinced that it was a living document. The new benefits arising from the charter as you went from a lifelong pension to not just cash but care—to allow the modern day veteran the opportunity to be rehabilitated, to get re-educated, for them and their family to move forward and feel they still had worth to their society, whether in the military or in the private sector—was the premise of the charter.

We knew that in any new document of this nature where you're changing the paradigm, there would be problems. The fact that it was a living document was what sold it for everyone, that this thing could be opened up immediately and changed. Unfortunately, the only change was Bill C-55, which was five years later.

We already knew within nine months to a year that there were problems starting to arise from the charter. Some of those problems are the following, and if they were addressed earlier, I'm sure, Mr. Scott, that you and your team wouldn't be here today. It's about who determines the disability amount.

In the many cases at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, if you have a hearing loss or something, they'll give you one-fifth of a payment. You can appeal to get two-fifths or three-fifths. A veteran may feel they are disabled to that extent, but the department may feel that they're only determined at this extent. Therein lies the large gap. Who determines what your disability is, especially when it comes to OSI or PTSD? That is one of the major problems we have right now.

The other one is the access to earnings loss benefit and permanent impairment allowance. We saw all the charts that said that if a person got a lump sum they would also get the following, all the way through. One of the concerns, of course, was the age 65 restriction, which the ombudsman pointed out. That is a very severe problem that needs to be addressed. There is no question about that.

The other one is that a lot of these benefits were made taxable. We saw a chart here the other day by the department that had a big part of it as a benefit, but a large part of it was taxable. If you got $2 million, $340,000 of that was taxable, so you really only had $1.7 million in that regard. Therein lies one of the aspects.

It is the access to the additional programs. It is the speed at which you are able to get them. It's the ability of veterans and their families to get the attention of the department in a timely manner to address their issues immediately, so that all their issues can be addressed.

Unfortunately, we're all to blame for this, through the bureaucracy in the department to the politicians themselves. Those accesses were slow. In some cases they didn't exist at all. In some cases, the veterans were so upset that they just hung up the phone and said they couldn't deal with these people.

In 2005 and 2006, when this charter was done, it was done with the best of intentions, by all the veterans groups and all the politicians who were here. I was on the plane when the four leaders at that time agreed to it. They fast-tracked it to get it through, knowing full well that if problems arose they could deal with the issues right away.

The purpose of this committee, as Mr. Hayes said, is that when we're done with our hearings we want to achieve the best new Veterans Charter that we can. We want to enhance it so that Mr. Berry, Mr. Bedard, Mr. Kirkland, everyone else, and especially your son, Mr. Scott, can get the benefits they so richly deserve, in a timely fashion, knowing full well that not one veteran has ever asked us for a Rolex watch or a trip to Florida.

I can assure you that a lot of veterans in the previous system had just about as many complaints as those in the new system. I deal with a lot of World War II and Korean veterans, and guys who retired in the sixties and seventies, who have just as many serious complaints about the old benefits that you good folks do with the new benefits.

So there is a system failure here. Our job, and our promise to each and every one of you, and I can say this on behalf of the committee, is to do the very best job we can.

We have three veterans on the committee right now, one behind us. Mr. Karygiannis knows all too well what the loss of someone in Afghanistan means, as one of his relatives also paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I just want to conclude, before we move on to Mr. Lobb, by saying that it always amazes and uplifts me when I see disabled veterans helping disabled veterans.

Mr. Bedard, Mr. Berry, and Mr. Kirkland, thank you. Thank you very, very much for what you're doing, not just for other veterans but for yourselves as well. Thank you especially to your families. We thank them for sharing you with all of us.

Now I'll move on to Mr. Lobb for four minutes, please.

[Jim Scott]

Thank you very much.

I would like to reiterate that we really appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee, first as the parents of a veteran, and second, in my case, as the president of the Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society, which is a non-partisan, volunteer, and now national organization.

With my wife Holly, I am a parent of a Canadian Forces Reserves soldier, Master Bombardier Daniel Christopher Scott, of the 15th Field Artillery Regiment, a reserve unit in British Columbia, who was severely wounded in Afghanistan on February 12, 2010. The second of our three children, Dan did two tours of duty in Afghanistan, coming home badly injured.

At the age of 24, in the service of Canada and because of an accidental bomb blast that took the life of Corporal Josh Baker and injured four other Canadian soldiers, my son had to have one of his kidneys removed, his spleen removed, and part of his pancreas removed. As a result of that, his life has been changed. For these injuries, he received a settlement under the new Veterans Charter of $41,500, with no other benefits such as retraining or earnings loss benefits.

It was difficult for me to believe that my son's life-threatening injuries were deemed to be worth so little. I should add a bit here. My wife actually works for an insurance company. Her job is to take litigated files and determine the one-time lump sum cash value. She has 200 files at any one time. We just couldn't understand why this was so disproportionately low. I also learned from my son that this was not unusual. Many of his fellow soldiers who were coming back from the Afghan conflict were being seriously disadvantaged by the lump sum payment under the new Veterans Charter.

I approached the government directly and was given assurances that the enhancements to the new Veterans Charter under Bill C-55 and additional funding for soldiers would address all these problems. However, I haven't seen this promise fulfilled as far as the compensation goes for the individual soldiers affected. I still see these small lump sum payments.

As a result, I sought legal advice and collaboration, which eventually led me to Don Sorochan, with the law firm Miller Thomson. As a consequence of Miller Thomson's agreeing to represent the soldiers legal interests pro bono, somebody had to pay for their disbursement costs. Mr. Sorochan convinced me that we would have to form a society that would raise the disbursement costs to go forward with this program, and that was the beginning of the Equitas Society. It was strictly to fund the disbursement costs.

However, soldiers started to contact us with their cases. It was an awful lot of work. Sometimes for three hours a day we would have to respond to e-mails and phone calls. I know that Don Sorochan is in the same boat. We received hundreds of calls and e-mails.

As a result of these examples, we found three key issues with the new Veterans Charter that were somewhat troubling. We divided the cases into the severely disabled, the moderately disabled, and the partially disabled.

For the severely disabled who receive their lump sum payment and monthly benefits support, we found that, compared to the previous Pension Act, they could be financially disadvantaged by approximately 30%. This is due to the new Veterans Charter reduction of benefits at age 65, and the fact that there are tax and clawback considerations to their monthly settlements, which is not normal for a workmen's compensation monthly payment.

Also, we found in talking to the soldiers that the clawback is actually a disincentive for these severely disabled members to find other employment. We encourage all of them to go forward with their lives, but for some reason, getting their money clawed back starts to make them want to just collect money. So we have some issues with the way that's being administered.

Secondly, we have the moderately disabled. These are Canadian Forces members who will be discharged because they don't meet the requirement of universality of service and who will receive two years or more of earning lost benefits as they're retrained. But they can be disadvantaged tremendously by up to 65%, because if you take the total cash value they would get over their lifetime under the old system, they have said to us that under the new system—and we believe them—there is a big gap in the benefits.

But what I would really like to emphasize is the Canadian Forces reserve members—especially from the province of British Columbia where we don't have a standing military base, so we raise the army with reserve soldiers—have been sent into harm's way. They have injuries. They've come back and these injuries are not such that they will be removed from the reserve unit. They're not discharged, so none of these programs come into play. However, they have to take their injuries into the civilian workplace and try to get employment.

It's quite sad because a lot of them say that they were going to be police officers and so on, and I ask them, “Can you run” or “Can you walk”? No. But then how are they going to do that? Their settlements are $26,000 or $40,000. It's just not enough to compensate them for the fact that they're going to have a permanent disability for the rest of their lives. But they aren't discharged from the reserves so they don't trigger any of these other programs.

When the program first came in it was supposed to be that they would remain in the military so it wouldn't really have been an issue.

The last issue we found, which is somewhat different from the promise in the new Veterans Charter is that a lot of the home units are making special deals with their soldiers so they can compensate them directly. Although this is very commendable, the individual soldiers know that this guy is getting this deal at this unit and that guy is getting this deal at that unit. It actually creates a lot of issues while people try to compensate for the fact that the new Veterans Charter is not accommodating to them.

The other issue is that some of these side deals are quite questionable if you were to look into them. It puts a tremendous amount of stress on the soldiers who are supposed to be reintegrating into society to know that the light of day cannot really shine on how the rehabilitation programs work. I can talk more about that offline.

In summary, the settlements under the new Veterans Charter in many cases do not equal the settlements under the previous Pension Act or under the Workers' Compensation Act, or even lump sum payments awarded by the courts.

I've left a 30-page document, in both French and English. There are some factual changes to this document but it does outline the issues here when we compare the new Veterans Charter payments to workers' compensation, to court settlements, and to previous pension acts.

I'm not saying that the new Veterans Charter doesn't work, but there are cases that have been outlined to us where it simply has failed or where there are major gaps in the program.

Don.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

We greatly appreciate that and we wish you and your family and everyone the very best. We look forward to working with the person who will be replacing you. We hope you have a lot of fun.

I have a couple of questions for you. You mentioned that there are 7,000 people being case-managed. You mentioned the number, but the reality is that over two-thirds of our veteran community are not even being serviced now by DVA. They don't have the benefit, or they have never applied, or maybe they were denied or something of that nature. Have you planned for an increase in that regard?

I mentioned to the deputy minister and the minister when they were here that you said that any veteran could have a home visit. That's not necessarily correct. We did 11 case trials in Halifax. Besides getting the response from DVA that they would get back within two to five days, the reality was that a person has to be case-managed before they have a home visit. A lot of veterans thought they wouldn't have to go in and workers would come to their house and help them fill in the forms on their very first call. I said, “I don't think that's the way it works.” So we'd like you to reiterate that for the record.

For Mr. Hayes's and the committee's sake, and for those who may be listening, Bill C-55 was authorized and approved by Parliament in 2011. Section 20.1 refers to a “comprehensive review of the provisions and implementation of this Act”. That's where this study came from originally, and that amendment actually came from this committee. When the bill came before the committee, this is what we unanimously adopted. I just want to put that on the record. That's why we're where we are now.

We thank you again, sir, for your service and I look forward to your response.

[Guy Parent]

That was brought about with Bill C-55? I would say offhand it would be the permanent impairment allowance supplement, because of access to PIA. The permanent impairment allowance provides income after 65. That's probably one of the best ones that was brought about there. The others were certainly important as well, and they certainly enhanced the quality of the charter. Going back to what you said, change is not always sufficient, but again I agree with you as to how do you define it. Now we're using charitable donations to bury some of our soldiers who can't afford to be buried. Is it because no change has been made? No, there have been changes made to the funeral and burial program, yet we still have a whole bunch of soldiers who were buried using charitable donations.

[Guy Parent]

Nothing was done officially that has actually, that was at that point in time.... The first official enhancement to the charter was Bill C-55. From 2006 until 2011, changes might have been brought about—changes to process, changes in other areas of administration—but the charter itself was never reviewed and was never really looked at in terms of the individual part and parcel of the charter and whether or not it met the needs of the veterans. I think that's the important aspect of what we're saying.

Of course, we know that in the department there's a continuous...that improvements are done. I think one of the difficulties, and it's certainly one thing that I keep harping on with the department, is the fact that when you make some improvements, tell the people, and identify them as being related to the new Veterans Charter. You can't wait for five years and then produce a list of 160 recommendations and say, “We've done that.” Well, that's fine, but people need to know, because then they'll realize there has been some work done on it. Sometimes, maybe, it's not the fact that there was no work done, but that people were silent about the work that was done. That's the important part.

But the first official enhancement to the new Veterans Charter was brought about by Bill C-55.

[Guy Parent]

Many of our recommendations would solve this situation, such as, for example, providing better access to impairment allowances, as we stated in our report. Even though Bill C-55, the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act made improvements to the impairment allowance, access is still very restricted. Opening up access to that allowance would correct some problems.

I also stated that increasing the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90% would give these veterans an opportunity to increase their retirement income. It would therefore be proactive.

We would like the department to consider these options.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

The charter is not perfect, but it's a strong foundation on which to build, as we did with a series of enhancements to better support our most seriously injured veterans or families in 2011, also called Bill C-55. As the minister touched on this week, these improvements represent an investment of approximately $189 million over five years and are benefiting approximately an additional 4,000 veterans.

They include, first, an increase in the monthly financial allowance under the earnings loss benefit, bringing the minimum annual pre-tax income for full-time regular force personnel to $42,426—and that is the 2013 rate—for those participating in rehabilitation or who are unable to be gainfully employed; second, improved access to monthly allowances, including the permanent impairment allowance under the new Veterans Charter for seriously injured veterans; third, a new monthly supplement of $1,047 at the 2013 rate to the permanent impairment allowance, intended for the most seriously disabled veterans who are also unable to be gainfully employed; and fourth, more flexible options for the payment of the lump sum disability award.

Veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel receiving a disability award of more than 5% now have the choice of receiving a single lump sum payment, annual payments over any number of years, or receiving part of the award as a lump sum and the remainder as annual payments.

Mr. Chair, in closing, and before we take your questions, I want to stress that the new Veterans Charter reflects the government's commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces, an essential piece of Canada's place in the world. In order for Canada to be able to carry out future military recruitment and retention for missions at home and abroad, our men and women in uniform and their families must know that their needs will be met if they can no longer serve in Canada's military.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this short presentation.

[Janice Burke]

During this period, focus groups were held with Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans and separately with the families of Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans to feed into program design. In addition, in advance of the legislation being tabled, information sessions were held at bases across the country with Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, and their families, involving some 800 participants.

The men and women in uniform told us that they needed services and benefits that were tailored to their needs and to those of their family and that support, wellness, independence, and a successful transition to civilian life. So we did that. The Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and regulations, called the new Veterans Charter, was designed to build a future where there's opportunity with security. That's important, because the average age at military release is 37 years, an age at which they and their families need the assurance of a secure future. They needed programs that support them if they suffer from chronic pain, permanent disability, and/or operational stress injury. They needed programs that would support them should they be grappling with employment, income, and disability support issues as they moved from a very structured military environment to civilian life. Also, they needed programs that recognized that this transition is a major adjustment for their entire family.

Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-11, introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This is only the second bill since the Conservative government came to power. That is very little considering all the issues that have been raised, including in the ombudsman's reports, and the recommendations on how to improve the new veterans charter.

It is a little disappointing that our government has so often ignored our national heroes over the past six years. The worst part is that the new veterans charter was supposed to be a living document, but the bill we are about to debate does not deal with the new charter. Contrary to what the minister was saying in response to the parliamentary secretary, the new veterans charter has not been routinely improved; it was improved only once.

When the charter was adopted in 2006, the concept of a living document meant that the charter would be amended as problems emerged. In the mission in Afghanistan, our troops suffered heavy losses. There were 158 deaths, and over 2,000 wounded soldiers came back, not to mention those who will be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in the coming years. According to a recent study, that is 14% of our troops, but we suspect that the number of injured soldiers and soldiers affected by stress is much higher.

It is against that backdrop that the new veterans charter was adopted by Parliament on the condition that it be a living document. That meant that it was going to be amended a number of times if required, as needs arose, or if the charter proved to be inadequate, as has been shown by the issues and comments raised in the past two years.

Since they came to power, the Conservatives have not kept that promise. The charter was amended only once in 2011, by means of Bill C-55. After seven years, a minister has finally decided to review the new charter in its entirety. It is not official, however, because the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has not yet begun the official review. As specified in Bill C-55, that study was supposed to have begun on October 4. Today is November 21 and the House adjourns on December 11, so we will have hardly any time to begin studying the new charter before the House adjourns for the holidays, and we will not be starting again until next February.

That leads us to today's debate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act. Essentially, this bill seeks to give priority to veterans and members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service. If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. They will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority.

A second provision of the bill deals with the extension of the entitlement to priority, from two years to five. At the moment, veterans are in a regulatory category whereas public service employees are protected by the act. The government has therefore decided to include veterans in a category that is protected by the Public Service Employment Act.

This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund, and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half-measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.

We will therefore support this bill at second reading, but we consider that it does not go far enough and that it raises questions that the government will have to answer. Moreover, in a climate of budget cutting, where we are seeing massive layoffs in the public service, this bill unfortunately will not really help veterans to get jobs in the public service, at least in the medium term.

This bill is actually a reaction to poor human resources management. The Conservatives have laid off so many public servants that veterans are no longer successful in being hired from the priority list.

What is most disappointing about the measures this government has introduced is the little impact they have had. I will not start listing off everything from 2006 on. I will only go back as far as the last budget, tabled in 2013.

The Conservatives announced with great fanfare that they were going to improve the Last Post Fund and double the refundable amount from close to $4,000 to a little under $8,000. An ombudsman, Patrick Stogran, had been mentioning this problem since at least 2009. The government waited some three or four years before addressing it. I would like to point out that it was a Liberal government that gutted the program in 1995 or thereabouts.

More recently, the Conservatives announced that they were increasing aid for training and post-secondary education, with maximum funding of $75,800 per veteran and a maximum envelope of $2 million over five years. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Although I do not know exactly how many veterans will apply for assistance under the program, let us take the amount of $2 million, for example, and divide it by $75,800, which is an accurate amount for someone going to university. If veterans receive the maximum amount, only 27 of them will have access to the program over this five-year period. Therefore, a little over five veterans a year will have access to the program.

I do not see how these measures will help our veterans. The Conservatives say they are increasing aid, but the criteria are often so strict that no one qualifies for it. It is easy to pull numbers out of the air and then make sure the criteria are so restrictive that the government will not be out of pocket at the end of the day. That is what the Conservatives are doing. They are using these tactics and saying that they are helping veterans, when what they are really doing is balancing the budget at their expense.

Now there is this bill that gives veterans priority for appointment to public service jobs. At first glance, it is a wonderful measure. However, on closer inspection, this bill is much less attractive because few public service jobs will be available in the coming years.

From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans made use of this priority entitlement. Of that number, 1,024 veterans secured a job in the public service. Of those 1,024 veterans, 739—72%—got a job with National Defence.

At Veterans Affairs Canada, the situation is somewhat more dire. Between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans got jobs at VAC, which corresponds to only 2% of all jobs.

However, our veterans, who have experienced the difficulties involved in the transition to civilian life, should be ideal candidates for jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada. They should play a key role in the development of VAC policies to ensure that those policies are designed for them and meet their needs.

The second-largest employer of veterans in the public service is the Correctional Service of Canada, which hired 54 veterans during that period, or 5% of all veteran hires. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is not very far behind with 44 hires, or 4% of the jobs obtained during this period.

When we look at these figures, it is clear that not all departments are making the same effort to hire veterans. Indeed, most departments have hired fewer than ten veterans, while others have hired none.

Therefore, these departments would have to undergo a major culture change to ensure that such measures actually help our veterans. As things stand right now, I am not sure that this will help even things out in terms of hiring more veterans in our public service.

The Ombudsman has found that about 4,500 veterans per year participate in vocational rehabilitation services. On average, 220 veterans put their names on list of those eligible for job priority status, and, as a result, 146 veterans on average get a job in the public service. This is a very small number. This does not make much of an impact on the majority of veterans or even on many of them.

Moreover, the job priority status for veterans applies only to a very specific group.

The vast majority of jobs in the public service require bilingualism, a post-secondary diploma or even university education. Two to four years of experience is often also required.

Under current regulations, veterans are given a two-year priority entitlement. The veteran must already have a diploma in hand because there is not enough time to start a university degree. Even now, with the new deadline, there is not enough time for a veteran to go to university, if he so wishes, and be available within the time prescribed.

In addition, veterans who do not have a university degree are not overly interested in going to university for the extended period required. As I said earlier, 4,500 veterans participate in the vocational rehabilitation program each year. Only 63 veterans chose university-level programs; 32 received support from Veterans Affairs Canada and 31 received support through the service income security insurance plan. The other participants chose vocational training or college-level programs that lasted anywhere from 12 to 24 months.

That number, 63, caught my attention. Is it true that only 63 veterans chose university-level programs, or are people being discouraged from choosing such programs because of the severely restrictive criteria?

The Ombudsman wrote the following in his report:

While...Veterans Affairs Canada profess[es] to consider the needs of the client/Veteran, they normally do not permit training or education in a new career field if, at the time of release...the client...has skills that are transferrable to the...workforce....

They are required to take a job that does not interest them or one that pays less than a career requiring post-secondary education, simply because they have skills.

The government does not want to do anything that will cost a lot of money. That is the conclusion. In the end, it is not need that influences the decisions, it is the cost of funding education.

The government is putting a lot of focus on the helmets to hardhats program, as though the construction industry were the miracle cure for job transition for our veterans. I agree, it is a good program, but it is not available in every province and it does not cover all trades. As I said, it is not available in Quebec, unfortunately. I have received calls from veterans who are disappointed that they cannot access this program because it is not available in Quebec.

I believe this restricts our veterans' ability to improve their quality of life and their job prospects. For example, the ombudsman recommends entering into partnerships with other industries and organizations, such as the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian defence and security industries and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. We have to have more collaboration from private sector players, who are not always aware of veterans' skills. Unfortunately, human resources departments do not know how to interpret the CVs of military candidates. A recent study revealed the scope of the task. The Navigator study, conducted for the Veterans Transition Advisory Council in late August, found that most of the 850 employers consulted have little or no understanding of veterans' skills. Only 16% of employers make a special effort to hire veterans.

Almost half of employers believe that a university degree is more important than military service when hiring. Only 13% said that their human resources department knows how to interpret a resumé from a military candidate. We have to do more in this regard.

To my mind, this bill has a major flaw. First, we have to remember that only Canadian Forces members medically released for service-related reasons will have access to the program. Previously, to be given priority, members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP had to be released for medical reasons, whether they were service-related or not. That is also the spirit of the new charter. To qualify for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits and services, the injury has to be service-related. If the department ruled otherwise, the veteran could appeal the decision to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and then the Federal Court. Unfortunately, this is no longer clear.

In addition, if a veteran needs to appeal a decision before a Canadian Forces tribunal or the VRAB, the procedures involved in these administrative tribunals can be very long. Does this mean that the duration of the priority, which begins the day the soldier is released from duty, continues to run out while these administrative procedures drag on? The ombudsman had this to say recently on his blog:

However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release.

Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated “service-related medical release” or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by VAC or the VRAB. Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority.

This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans. That is not what this bill does.

Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill. Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Now members of the Canadian Forces released for medical reasons attributable to service will have this priority entitlement and others will not.

This bill should have gone further. One major problem facing the Canadian Forces is the principle of universality of service, which requires members who cannot be deployed to be dismissed from the Canadian Forces. This is not entirely fair. We understand the importance of this principle to cohesion and morale, but would it not be possible to include the duty to accommodate principle?

Do those who served their country not deserve to be given a job where they could continue to serve? That is what the RCMP does for its members. The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that the Department of National Defence wanted to maintain the status quo on this. However, would it not be possible for the Standing Committee on National Defence to study this issue? Does this government not owe it to our troops and our veterans?

For months now we have been asking the government whether it realizes that it has a moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation toward injured veterans. The government's lack of response would suggest not. The NDP has said time and time again that it will honour this century-long commitment made by successive Canadian governments, except for this one.

Again, the NDP will support Bill C-11, but the government will have to address our concerns in committee and make the necessary changes to ensure that this bill benefits the largest possible number of veterans who need this priority entitlement for a smooth transition and a better quality of life for them and their family.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for the question.

One of the things in our research and in just looking back on history, if you will, I needed to know how the new Veterans Charter came to be and why, and all of that. That was a very, very important learning experience, certainly for me, to be able to compare what was in the old pension system to what the new Veterans Charter brought on board.

I appreciate fully that this was something that came about as a result of a lot of input from veterans themselves and veterans groups, and the various political parties all joined in to provide enhanced benefits, services and programs, and support for veterans and their families, which then became known as Bill C-55, and then, of course, the new Veterans Charter and all of that.

Since that time, it truly has been a living document, because in the interim period and up to recent times, there have been well over 100 very significant improvements made. In fact, I think the number of actual changes is something in the area of 160. It has been a consistent ongoing effort to better align services, programs, and support for veterans and their families, keeping pace with the changing times up to this point in time.

Granted, we can do better, and I think it's a very responsible thing we're doing, with your help and support, in that we'll now have a review and see if we can move forward in continuing this effort, but there has been a lot of effort to date, and I think that has to be acknowledged. We can't just constantly be negative about the progress, the support, and the commitment of almost five billion more new dollars to veterans programs and services since the new Veterans Charter came into being.

That's not chump change. That's a lot of commitment translated into program services. We have to thank the Canadian taxpayer for their contribution, their efforts, and their support to veterans, which continues.

We hope you can help us do even better.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for that question.

As I indicated in my comments, this is an opportunity for us not only to do the review that was required of Bill C-55, but to amplify the work, the research, the kinds of review that will enable us to better define what our commitment is to veterans.

We heard about different terminology, different dialogue. I think it's important for us to come to a consensus or an agreed reference on what it is we are in fact endeavouring to do, whether it's a social contract commitment, social obligations, the sacred obligation, or all of those things. I think we should try to find what it is exactly we need to address. Hopefully those words will then reflect into meaningful action throughout the whole of our service and support for veterans.

I believe the new Veterans Charter should reflect this more clearly. We should state that up front. It should be our vision, our mission, and something that all of us can embrace as a purpose and intent for why we're here in our responsibility to our veterans and their families.

I think that should be something that you, I hope, can come up with and we can embody in this revisiting of the new Veterans Charter.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Let me thank you for stepping in. We wish him well, of course.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear today as part of the comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter.

I thank you for having introduced our deputy and the general, as well. I'll move on to my comments.

In 2011, Parliament passed Bill C-55, which created one new monthly payment, expanded the eligibility for two monthly financial benefits, and allowed veterans to break their lump sum into more flexible terms of their choice. It also added a requirement that these new measures be reviewed by Parliament in 2013.

Upon taking office, I heard clearly from the Veterans Ombudsman, veterans groups, and stakeholders that a wider review of the new Veterans Charter was needed. I therefore asked my parliamentary secretary to ensure that a comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter be taken up in short order. I am pleased to be here today to discuss how we can improve the new Veterans Charter for veterans and their families.

As you undertake this review, l'd like to take a minute to discuss my hopes for your work.

It is my firm belief that you should focus the review on how the new Veterans Charter serves the most seriously injured, how our government supports Canadian veterans' families, and how Veterans Affairs delivers the programs that have been put in place.

Some have said this should be a travelling road show. I disagree. I believe Canadians and veterans from across the country should be able to submit their comments or insights to you directly, and I believe we should remain focused.

Colleagues, the new Veterans Charter was unanimously passed by Parliament under the former government after years of debate and study among experts, veterans' representatives, and veterans themselves. While we can never say everyone, the vast majority obviously concluded that the old pension system had outlived its usefulness.

I encourage members to read the Senate's report on the new Veterans Charter, issued last year.

I would also highlight a comment Senator Roméo Dallaire stated upon its introduction in the other place:

...it is with great anticipation that I am speaking to [the new Veterans Charter], which proposes to modernize our veterans' assistance and compensation program...in fact, a new social contract between the people of Canada and our veterans, both past and present.

Advances in medical knowledge and disability management, and changing demographics among the veterans population were just some of the changes that led to this new approach in 2005. As the situation facing Canadian veterans changed from 2005 to today, so too has the new Veterans Charter and how it is applied.

We will be distributing copies of a report my department has produced, which outlines 160 adopted recommendations which led to 107 improvements to the administration of benefits and services under the new Veterans Charter. These changes represent our collective effort to keep pace with changing times, but I will be the first to agree that more needs to be done.

Colleagues, since 2005 we have seen the effects of the war in Afghanistan on our military men and women. With the new payment and options introduced in 2011, more financial support has been directed to those who have been seriously injured. However, I am convinced, as I stated earlier, more can and should be done.

Our commitment to veterans is absolute, and has been so since our government was first formed in 2006.

One must only look at the overall Veterans Affairs budget to see how, even during a recession and a government-wide cost reduction exercise, Veterans Affairs spends approximately $700 million more today than in 2005.

The work our government does each day has been and can be called many things: duty, responsibility, commitment, social contract, obligation, sacred or not, or covenant. Colleagues, I believe it is all of those things.

Therefore, as part of this review, I ask you to determine how best to state our commitment to Canadians and their families and what is the best format to do so in the new Veterans Charter.

It is important that Canadians express through the parliamentary process exactly what is our shared duty, responsibility, mandate, obligation, commitment, or covenant to Canadian veterans.

Returning to the changing times, Veterans Affairs offices in eight locations across Canada have seen demand drop, and so yes, they are being closed. However, where veterans need them most, our government has maintained 26 Veterans Affairs Canada service centres, has established and supports 24 integrated personnel support centres and 17 operational stress injury clinics. In total, Veterans Affairs will have 67 locations across the country to meet the changing need but this is again only part of the story.

Imagine how many times a veteran has driven past a Service Canada office on the way downtown to pick up a brochure from a Veterans Affairs district office. Now, in locations where Veterans Affairs has never operated before, veterans and their families can visit one of 600 Service Canada sites to get the information they need.

As times have changed, so too have the rates being paid under the funeral and burial program. The average cost of a funeral today is just over $7,000. That is why last spring our government increased the maximum payment to $7,376 while providing an additional $1,200 on average to a veteran's family for any burial costs. In so doing, we have one of the most robust programs of our allies. By comparison, the United States provides just over $2,000, the United Kingdom provides $3,500, and New Zealand provides $1,800, all noted in Canadian dollars.

It is clear this program has kept up with the changing times, because of improvements made by our government.

I will also take a moment to speak about the supplementary estimates (B), which this year includes a request for another $20 million to support Canadian veterans' funeral costs, our commemorative promotional programs, and to increase the war veterans allowance and other health-related benefits. This further request for new financial support builds on our government's record of almost $5 billion in new financial support since 2006. With our administration costs on the decline, this means every new request for additional funding from Parliament will more and more directly affect Canadian veterans.

I have one final thought before I take your questions. The exercise you are embarking on is not one of the elusive pursuit of perfection, but rather is about finding the reasonable solutions that will focus on the veterans and their families who need them the most, especially the critically injured and the homeless as examples.

Mr. Chair and members, thank you.

[Mary Chaput]

I'll give you the high points, and then I'll ask Charlotte to fill in the gaps.

Certainly the enhancements to the new Veterans Charter, Bill C-55 account for a significant portion of that increase.

[Brad White]

I can't get away with not saying something on this one.

We're taking an institution that hasn't moved its doors in a lot of years. We're taking an institution in a bureaucracy that's been sitting there, very comfortable in doing its business the way it has been doing it, until all of a sudden we had 158 casualties, serious deaths, in Afghanistan and people coming back and saying “We need a new way to do business”.

The Legion fully supports the aims of the New Veterans Charter to make a person well and get them on their feet again, instead of simply continuing to support an injury. But if we hadn't made our noise and hadn't made our moves, we would never have had Bill C-55 come forward to make some of those changes, to move the New Veterans Charter out of its concrete. It's supposed to be a living document.

Processing and reassessing how business is done at VAC should be a normal institutional everyday way of life. It hasn't been. So when we say that the changes are coming and they're institutional, they need to come. It's about time.

Doing business better with the modern technology, it's a wonderful thing. Yes, we can do business better. But as I've said before, it's not a cookie-cutter situation. We're dealing with a very diverse group of people and we have to remember that. We can't paint everybody with the same brush. It's a very diverse, wide group of people.

[Gordon Moore, Dominion President, Royal Canadian Legion]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to appear in front of your committee. As the dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion, I am pleased to be able to speak to you this afternoon on behalf of our 330,000 members and their families.

The Royal Canadian Legion is well situated to provide advice on Veterans Affairs Canada, cutting red tape, or the transformation agenda. As the only national veterans service organization, the Royal Canadian Legion has delivered programs to all veterans and their families since 1926. The Legion is an iconic cornerstone of Canadian communities and at the forefront of support for military and RCMP members and their families.

Today a new generation of veterans is coming home, and veterans and their families will continue to turn to the Legion for support and affordable housing, representation, benevolent assistance, career transition, counselling, trauma relief, and recognition. The Legion provides representation to assist veterans and their families with obtaining their disability benefits from VAC. The Legion's service bureau network, with over 1,500 branch service officers and 25 command service officers, provides representation from the first application to VAC through to the appeal and reconsideration of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Through legislation, the Legion has access to service health records and departmental files to provide comprehensive yet independent representation at no cost, irrespective of Legion membership. Therefore, we are an active participant in the VAC transformation agenda.

VAC has embarked on a five-year transformation agenda to cut red tape and approve services to the almost one million veteran community. This is a diverse community: age, RCMP, wartime, regular force, reserve forces, families, male, female, and all with diverse needs. The complexity of this community cannot be overstated. This is no simple task.

The vision for the VAC transformation agenda is to be

...responsive to the diverse and changing needs of veterans and their families by ensuring relevant programs and policies, fast and easy access to benefits and services, professional service by employees who understand the military experience, and seamless transition from military to civilian life.

The Legion is watching closely the implementation of the transformation agenda and the impact it will have on the veteran community. Is the transformation agenda meeting its vision?

While the demographic of the veteran population is changing, there remain approximately 118,000 war service veterans; however, only half of these are clients of VAC. They are the most vulnerable of our veteran community due to their age and increasing needs. Every day these veterans and their spouses continue to come forward needing immediate assistance. We are concerned with some of the specific red tape initiatives that will directly impact this group.

With regard to the veterans independence program, in April of this year the government announced that for housekeeping and grounds-keeping services, veterans will receive an up-front grant for this service with the responsibility to disburse and coordinate with the service provider. For some veterans, this is probably doable; however, there are a number of veterans where the service provider bills VAC directly. For this group, they do not engage or contract with the service provider. Now the onus and burden is being placed on the veteran. There should be a choice.

Additionally, some of our lower-income or fixed-income veterans will be given a seemingly large sum of money and are expected to put it in the bank and disburse it on a biweekly basis. However, should an emergency situation arise, they'll be faced with the decision to use this money or not. This is an unnecessary burden placed on a fragile group.

The purpose of the veterans independence program is to keep the veterans in their homes and independent. Will this goal be met? Is this transformational or is this about deficit reduction?

With regard to district office closures, the closing of district offices to respond to the changing demographic is of concern. The Legion has been told that eight district offices will close in 2014, all at the same time. This will be offset by an increase of staff at the integrated personnel support centres and a consolidation of VAC resources in major centres.

The Legion fully supports the increase in case managers at the integrated personnel support centres to ensure a seamless transition from military to civilian life, especially for complex cases; however, there still needs to be sufficient resources to meet the needs of our wartime and aging veteran population, whose needs can very quickly go from independent to complex with a simple fall or infection. This remains a large group of approximately 118,000 veterans.

How will this impact the RCMP located in small communities across the country? Are there two standards of service—Canadian Forces and RCMP?

On the Service Canada initiative, the government announced in July that services will be available through Service Canada outlets, enabling veterans to drop in, obtain information, and get assistance with applications from many of the 600 outlets across the country.

We are carefully monitoring the implementation of this new service. Have the staff been provided with sufficient training to advise on disability benefits and services available to veterans?

We know that only half of the approximately 118,000 wartime veterans are in receipt of benefits from VAC. Our service officers across the country report that wartime veterans who were previously not in receipt of VAC assistance are coming forward every day in need of VAC services.

The process is complex, and time is critical. If turned away, will they get the help they deserve? Is this transformational?

With respect to the business process, since VAC embarked on the transformation agenda, the time to process a disability application has significantly improved. This has been the result of a significant change to online forms, the introduction of electronic insurance and health records, and simplifying the application process for service officers and VAC disability benefit officers. Once the application is submitted, the turnaround time, especially for aging veterans, has been counted as just a few weeks.

We've also seen adjudicators follow up with service officers to ensure the decision can be made quickly. This is a tremendous change, and it took place over a short period of time.

VA staff, at all levels, should be commended for their effort and commitment to reducing the application processing time. This is transformational.

With respect to reducing complexity, this is a key theme of the transformation agenda and cutting the red tape. The Legion continues to advocate on behalf of wartime veterans and their spouses, including wartime allied veterans, to simplify eligibility for the veterans independence program. This was first raised by the Gerontological Advisory Council report, “Keeping the Promise”, in 2006.

Please remove the artificial barriers and complexity to ensure our wartime veterans and their spouses have access to the veterans independence program. The program is essential to keeping our veterans safe and independent in their homes. This would be transformational.

On eligibility for services and benefits, attached as an annex to the VAC eligibility grid you will note there are 18 categories of eligibility for services and benefits. How will a Service Canada employee interpret this table? Will a veteran or a family member searching online be able to determine if mom or dad has eligibility? Simplifying accessibility and eligibility to VAC health benefits and services would be transformational.

With regard to strengthening partnerships, the Legion, through its legislative mandate, works side by side with VAC. While this relationship has been going on for over 86 years, there's room for improvement and strengthening.

The long-term care surveyor program, in which the Legion provides trained surveyors to visit veterans in long-term facilities across the country to administer a client satisfaction survey on quality assurance at the request of VAC, has been in place since 2003. It is an example of our partnership and outreach capability.

There are approximately 154 active surveyors. These are trained and security-cleared volunteers. In 2010, the surveyors visited 4,230 veterans in 868 facilities, and VAC paid approximately $180,000 for mileage, reports, and training for the same period.

The value of the program to meet with a veteran and his or her family in a facility cannot be understated. The volunteer has visibility in the facility and can hear, see, and smell the environment. They are the boots on the ground. The capability of this program ensures that no matter where a veteran resides, a visit will be conducted at very low cost.

As district offices are downsizing and realigning, the continuance of this program will ensure that veterans in long-term care facilities are not forgotten. The Legion is well positioned as a national entity to continue this valuable program with reliable and trained personnel. We are concerned that transformational priorities will eliminate this program.

In June of this year, at our 2012 convention, the Legion approved $1 million in new start-up funding to ensure the rollout of the national homeless veterans program. This program will be developed from the ground up and will reflect the unique needs of each community. It will build on partnerships with VAC, social service agencies, first responders, and other organizations.

VAC needs to have the resources and staff to partner at the local level in communities across the country. How will closing district offices impact local initiatives and the ability to provide timely response to these veterans clearly in crisis?

This year the Legion will commit almost $1 million to the veteran transition network, an operational stress injury treatment program that grew out of the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Medicine. This is truly a success story. Our new funding will assure that this new network has the capacity to establish a national not-for-profit treatment program and will deliver much-needed programs across the country.

I must emphasize our concern that VAC has not recognized this program as a treatment option for our veterans, despite its more than ten-year history. This is an opportunity to partner and ensure that proven treatment options are available for our veterans. This is transformational.

Next, with regard to sustaining the new Veterans Charter, the new Veterans Charter has evolved since its introduction in 2006. Bill C-55, implemented in October of 2011, introduced improved financial enhancements, especially for seriously ill and injured veterans. Proactive consultation with veterans groups will be important to evaluate the impact of these changes and the gaps and priorities for future change. This is a dynamic piece of legislation, and there's no mechanism in place for veterans groups to address performance measurement and change management in a transparent and holistic approach.

In terms of outreach, over the last two years VAC's outreach has focused for the most part on delivering briefings to the Canadian Forces on bases and units. The outreach to the RCMP has been even less. We know that in recent deployments, 25% of those deployed were reservists. How are they being connected with services that they may require?

The Legion has an extensive outreach program to inform veterans and their families on health promotion, independent living, community resources, and healthy lifestyles. We offer information on our programs, representation, and financial assistance, as well as other government programs and initiatives. Strengthening our partnership with both DND and VAC, and exporting our capacity to communities across the country, would move the yardsticks, fill this gap, and perhaps lessen the impact of district office closures. This is transformational.

A national veteran's identification card would not only provide the recognition of veterans but also a national veterans database. We're surprised that between DND and VAC there's not a single or complete veterans database registry to reach out to the community. This would facilitate communications and benefits and services for both DND and VAC. A veteran's identification card would be transformational.

The Royal Canadian Legion is committed to the transformation process. However, the cutting red tape agenda needs to be monitored. It should not be about budget reduction.

The vision for the VAC transformation agenda is to be

...responsive to the diverse and changing needs of veterans and their families by ensuring relevant programs and policies, fast and easy access to benefits and services, professional service by employees who understand the military experience, and seamless transition from military to civilian life.

This vision should not be forgotten. Each initiative should be evaluated to ensure it achieves the vision. This is significant and complex.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address the members.

Thank you.

[Keith Hillier]

I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. They were tabled on Tuesday afternoon. But it's been many millions of dollars, particularly with regard to Bill C-55, which came into effect last fall, and in fact increased the amounts of money for those most injured. So there have been significant amounts. I don't want to quote an amount, but I know that the budget of the department is over $3.6 billion, approaching $3.7 billion. So there has been a constant increase.

If you look at the budget figures, you will see the amounts are significant, in that, sadly, with the passing of many Second World War veterans, those budgetary expenditures are going down, but with regard to the modern-day veterans, and we have about 72,000 right now, those budget expenditures have been increasing in areas such as disability amounts and in the earnings loss program, for those who are on the rehabilitation program.

Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour for me to rise in this House of Commons to speak and an even greater honour when it comes to speaking about our veterans. To begin, I want to say to our veterans who are watching us and to their families that all hon. members, regardless of their political differences—there are always differences—want to salute them and thank them for everything they do for our country, what they have done and what they continue to do. Veterans are at the heart of our society and our democracy. All parliamentarians can say thank you to our veterans and their families for what they have done and what they continue to do for us.

It is an honour for me to speak as a member of a government that, for six years, has been putting its heart and soul into improving the quality of life of our veterans.

I want to commend the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on his motion. I know that he works hard for veterans. He is an honourable colleague for whom I have a great deal of respect. However, I must point out that when it comes time to stand up in the House for veterans—and not just talk about them—by voting funding for them, with the exception of Bill C-55, the opposition members fail us, unfortunately. They are not there when we need them in the House to implement budget initiatives to improve the quality of life of our veterans.

As I just said, I certainly acknowledge the work of this member and the opposition regarding our veterans, as well as their great speeches today in support of our veterans. However, there have been times when I think those members had wished they had stood with our government and supported our new investment in veterans and their families.

Unfortunately, time and time again, the New Democrats and the Liberals have voted against the veterans and against our budget initiatives. For that reason, I find it rich that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore would bring forward a motion questioning our government's support and commitment to our veterans and their families, which is rock solid.

We have a motion in front of this House that deals with providing programs and services to all military and RCMP veterans. We are also serving RCMP veterans. I want to salute them today, including for their valour.

Our Conservative government has a record of investing in our veterans and their families. Let us be clear, as I have said over and over in and outside this House: we will maintain benefits to veterans, because we believe in our veterans. However, and let me be crystal clear, this will not prevent us from cutting red tape for our veterans.

Our veterans deserve a streamlining of the processes. Our government will keep on improving our processes and making this the hassle-free service they deserve. For this, I seek the support of the opposition. Are they willing to maintain the cumbersome red tape facing veterans?

I think we have an opportunity today to say clearly that we will maintain veterans' benefits but also make sure that we are making life easier for them when they deal with the government and Veterans Affairs. That is why in this form, the motion is not helping veterans. Our country must be there for veterans when they need us, and in clear and plain language. Of course, our government is committed to providing these men and women with the benefits and services they need and deserve.

I am very proud to hold the portfolio of veterans affairs minister within this Conservative government. My predecessors have gone to great lengths to improve the lives not only of our traditional veterans but also of our modern veterans, and their families as well. That is what this government is committed to, and why this government's record over the last six years is unprecedented.

Canadians have not seen such a commitment to our veterans since the end of the World War II. That is a fact. That is the truth. The numbers tell the same story, whatever the opposition might try to say.

First and foremost, we have been making significant investments in the programs, benefits and services that our veterans, our Canadian Forces members and their families depend on. Everything we do is a reflection of our commitment to supporting our veterans with the care they need, when and where they need it, and for as long as they need it. In the last six years, our government has consistently increased its budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve the care and support we provide to our veterans and their families. We have increased the budget for the last six years.

Where were the opposition? They were opposing our budget initiatives. They were voting against our budgets. Which members supported our veterans, steadily and readily, in this House for the last six years? They can be found here around me, the Conservative members of this government. I want to thank every single member who has supported our veterans' initiatives.

Just last week, we demonstrated our commitment once again when we tabled the 2012-13 main estimates. These estimates provide Veterans Affairs Canada with nearly $3.6 billion, an increase of $44.8 million, or 1.3% of it overall annual budget shown in the main estimates.

Last week, we went back to ask for additional funds to ensure that our veterans have access to the programs and services to which they are entitled and which they deserve. Tomorrow, I will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I hope to have the support of opposition members to approve not only the supplementary estimates (C) required to close out the current fiscal year, but also the budget for next year.

Once again, as in the past six years, we are increasing our investment. Why? For a very simple reason: we are creating programs for our new generation of veterans.

Just a few weeks ago, I was in Winnipeg announcing the cutting red tape for veterans initiative. This plan will reduce cumbersome red tape and provide our veterans with the hassle-free service they deserve. That is why we need the support of the House to make sure that we are cutting red tape. That is why we need to change the motion to make the lives of our veterans better when dealing with our department.

As I said during the announcement, much of what is needed to make these improvements simply involves returning to the basics and overhauling how the department works. With that in mind, we are putting in place updated and more efficient technology to significantly reduce bureaucratic delays. We are modernizing the tools that our officials use when they are serving our veterans.

I want to raise the high profile of our officials working in the department. They are dedicating their hearts and souls to making the life of our veterans better. It is not always easy and not always perfect, but they are doing their best to make sure that the veterans get the best service they deserve in a timely manner and that they, of course, respect the rules to which they are entitled and under which they have to apply.

Therefore, we are providing our officials with a new tool called the benefit browser. This tool is aimed at helping our employees make sure they get information on all the services our veterans can receive.

I announced our red tape reduction initiative two weeks ago in Winnipeg. This will ensure that our veterans have access to the services to which they are entitled in a more timely manner and with less red tape. I am very proud of this initiative.

We listened to veterans and the veterans ombudsman. They asked us to cut red tape and to communicate with them in clear and plain language. The work began a few years ago. The ombudsman has acknowledged that there has been some improvement and that our correspondence contains the elements for communicating with our veterans. Almost 41,000 letters a year are sent to veterans. However, there is a problem: the letters are often three pages long and can be difficult to understand because of the rather bureaucratic language.

We are therefore changing the way we communicate. We are improving it by providing reasons for the decisions rendered. That means that every letter sent to a veteran is divided into sections so that the veteran can understand the logical progression of the letter. What was the veteran's request? What is the decision? What is the evidence to support that decision? What factors, references, codes, regulations and tools allowed us come to that decision? How can veterans obtain more information or, if applicable, how can they request a review of the decision, sometimes with new information?

This is at the heart of the red tape reduction initiative. By communicating clearly and effectively with veterans, we will avoid many annoyances. Nothing is more insulting to a veteran, or to anyone for that matter, than to be sent a decision that he or she does not understand. That is why, as of two weeks ago, our department is communicating with our veterans in clear and concise language. I must say that we have already had very positive feedback from veterans. We are following up with them and we are receiving very constructive comments. Above all, this process is helping our veterans to better understand the decisions and avoid a certain amount of frustration.

Veterans are seeing a difference already with the consistent measures we are putting in place to make the lives of our veterans better. We have improved the response times at our national call centre and we are reducing the amount of paperwork veterans have to complete for many of the health benefits provided by the department. As well, with direct deposit now available for a number of benefits, veterans and their dependants are receiving their money faster and easier. That is why I invite the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to support the amendment we will be putting forward because we want to make the lives of our veterans easier.

More than 41,000 disability benefit applications from veterans are presented each year and now we are responding in clear and plain language with the reasons for the decisions. We are moving forward and going ahead. We are cutting red tape, and this is only the beginning, because there are a lot of internal efficiencies we can make and many ways in which we can improve the way the government and the department are dealing with veterans. Are we getting support from the opposition to move forward and make the lives of our veterans easier? That is what I hope because this is where we want to go.

Our government will never be satisfied with the status quo. We will not do things just because they have always been done that way. We are looking at ways we can improve. It is most interesting that those improvements are coming from the veterans and from our officials who know how we can make things better.

That is why in January our right hon. Prime Minister announced funding for another great initiative that, unfortunately, the opposition decided not to support. However, the opposition was alone because we got support from the unions, provincial governments, workers and veterans because this program is called “helmets to hardhats”. The program is aimed at ensuring that military personnel who are leaving the forces can transition in a seamless manner into civilian life. This is a huge success. Everyday I receive calls from entrepreneurs who want to hire veterans. I hear from many groups that are willing to join in the helmets to hardhats initiative. We are ensuring that our veterans go into high paying jobs in the construction industry. Do members know who the winners are? Our country, our veterans and our economy are the winners.

We want to be on top of the wave when it comes to health, research and all aspects regarding our veterans' physical and mental health. Last December, I established the new scientific advisory committee on veterans' health. All veterans who want to get in touch with the committee can send an email to [e-mail] and they will be able to submit their information to the committee, which is working on health issues, the first one being depleted uranium. We are hearing the veterans, working with them and we are delivering.

That is not the only thing. Last fall, thanks to the leadership of this government, we announced significant enhancements to the new veterans charter which is at the core of our new program to meet the needs of modern veterans. Once again, we listened and took action with the committees, the Royal Canadian Legion and all the great stakeholders of this country. They told us that the charter that was initiated awhile ago did not go far enough. They said that it needed to be adjusted to keep pace with the care and support they required. It is a living document and these enhancements are doing just that.

Within the next five years, there will be an additional investment of $189 million. I will be going to committee tomorrow to ask for additional funding because there is a strong uptake by our modern veterans into our new programs. We expect that more than 5,000 veterans will benefit from these programs. The accrued costs are $2 billion.

Our government is investing in veterans. We are moving forward.

I spoke briefly about the improvements to the new veterans charter. Obviously, we have achieved many things over the past six years, whether it be the creation of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, the creation of the veterans charter or the broadening of the scope of many programs, including the veterans independence program. We are moving forward.

However, I had a bit of a problem with one thing that the hon. member said earlier in his speech, and that is when he said that he wanted to help me. And so, I actually found a way for the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to help me.

If the member wants to help our veterans, he should support them, support our government, support our budget and support the amendment I am willing to bring forward.

[Stéphane Lemieux, Team Manager, Client Services, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Chair and committee members, I am a client services team manager. I am from the Quebec district office, and I'm deployed to the Valcartier Garrison. I'm fairly new to Veterans Affairs Canada. I joined up on September 21, 2010, but before that I had the pleasure and the honour to command troops for about 23 years with the Royal 22nd Regiment.

One of the first things that struck me when I came into my new responsibilities was the amount of information I should have known. I should have known that information from VAC because I was commanding troops and I would have been in a better position to advise my soldiers. I also should have known that information when I was told that my career was going to be over, because I would have been in a better position to understand the programs and the benefits that were lying in front of me to help me make an efficient transition between military life and civilian life.

This is the scope of my presentation: I'm going to talk about why things changed in 2006. I will go through the programs that are available and the changes that have been made, mainly last fall, to illustrate how these things work. I will go through two case scenarios that will show you how the tools work to help our veterans make the transition between military and civilian life. Then, at the end, we will obviously take questions.

When I meet former colleagues, I'm often asked why we replaced a system that seemed to work well with the new charter. The reality and our perception of it are often very different.

A number of studies in the early 2000s showed that injured military members had significant difficulty reintegrating effectively into civilian life. The inability to have their knowledge and skills recognized on the labour market was often a problem for these military members when they had to start a second career as civilians. A failure often led to problems with depression, poverty and problems within the family, such as crises within the family unit. Disability pensions were often insufficient to enable veterans to continue to support their family.

Experts contend that starting a new career, occupying a new job, which carries with it a number of challenges, is key to an effective transition to civilian life. The only gateway to Veterans Affairs programs was eligibility for a disability pension. To gain access to more services, members had to show that they were much more ill.

If we look at the services that were available before 2006, first, we had the disability pension. The amount was based on the percentage of how much the illness or disease related to the service had an impact on your life. The monthly amount was tax-free and could be paid throughout your life.

Second, we had health care, which was broken down into three main categories. First was the veterans independence program, the VIP. It helped our veterans stay the longest time possible in their houses with dignity. Then you had long-term care for problems related to a service disability, plus the treatments--benefits for any health issues that were recognized as being related to the service. If you hurt your knee, it was recognized. And when you got out of the military anything that needed to be done to your knee was covered by Veterans Affairs Canada.

Finally, we had case management.

In order to better serve our military people leaving the forces to make the transition into the civilian world, the new charter came out in 2006. Let's look at the programs there.

We have the career transition service. Regardless of the reasons for the release, the soldier has access to transition services within two years of release. The program helps military members reorganize and find a job. The program provides workshops on how to write a résumé, on interview techniques and on searching for a job effectively. For soldiers who are released and who are leaving the Canadian Forces, one of the biggest challenges is finding a new job and, particularly, new interests. In fact, throughout their time serving in the Canadian Forces, they didn't need to ask themselves those kinds of questions.

Then, there's the rehabilitation program, which is without a shadow of a doubt the spearhead of the new charter. The rehabilitation program has three pillars: a medical component that touches on physical and psychological aspects; a psychosocial component to help military personnel find ways to interact in their environment; and a career transition component aimed at helping military personnel find a job that is suited to their physical or mental limitations. The objective of the last component is to enable military personnel to find gainful employment with new challenges, enabling them to become productive Canadian citizens.

Military personnel released for medical reasons are automatically eligible for the rehabilitation program within 120 days of their release. This is also the case for personnel who, regardless of the reason for release from the Canadian Forces, have physical problems or are having difficulty reintegrating into civilian life for reasons related to their military service. We will look at some examples to illustrate this at the end of the presentation.

We also have the disability award, which works in the same way as the disability pension I spoke about earlier. But it's a lump sum given in one payment.

In addition, the new charter provides access to the public service health care plan. Previously, military personnel who had less then 10 years of service did not have access to this plan. Now, a member eligible for the rehabilitation program can have access to the public service health care plan. This is a substantial benefit, especially for members who have a family and children.

The new charter also allows for a vast number of financial benefits.

First, there is the earnings loss benefit, which consists of payment of 75% of the military member's pay upon release for members eligible for the rehabilitation program. For military personnel unable to return to work, this benefit would continue to be paid until age 65.

Second, to compensate for the drop in a member's level of employability due to service-related injuries, a member could be eligible for the permanent impairment allowance, which is a monthly taxable benefit, that operates at three levels and may vary between $500 and $1,600.

Third, when the earnings loss benefit ends, meaning, once the individual has completed the rehabilitation program, the Canadian Forces income support benefit takes over. It helps the member financially until he or she can find a job and enter the job market.

Lastly, there's the supplementary retirement benefit, which is designed to compensate for the lower pension contributions made because the individual was unable to work. The earnings loss benefit, which ends at age 65, is replaced by the supplementary retirement benefit which, with the other plans that provide benefits at age 65, acts as financial leverage.

In addition, the new charter provides services to families. The Department of National Defence recognizes the importance of the families that support our military personnel. The Department of Veterans Affairs feels the same way. The career transition component of the rehabilitation program can be used by the spouse if our client is unable to begin a career transition. Also, our case managers can provide services to families to help children and spouses cope better with the new reality of the released military member.

Lastly, we've maintained case management services, the death benefit, which is a disability award, and, obviously, all the health care that was available under the former system before the new charter came into force.

Five years ago, when the new charter came out, it was well understood that along the line we probably had to go back to the books and review some of the programs to make sure we would better serve our veterans. Bill C-55 was approved and some major changes to some of the programs came into effect last fall in order to have the charter better serve our veterans.

First of all, we discovered that payment of a lump sum of the disability award in one cheque was not appropriate to everybody. So now veterans can elect to have payment of their disability award broken down into different payments. We also discovered that the earning loss benefit of 75% was not suitable for everybody. Let's take an example of a young soldier being injured in Afghanistan. When we took 75% of his salary, it was too low. So we came up with a $40,000 a year minimum earning loss benefit for some people with the lower rank. For somebody who had been released in the 1990s, the salaries were a lot different from what they are now.

We also improved access to the permanent impaired allowance to make sure more veterans would be eligible for this program. For somebody who gets to the higher level—the $1,600 a month, as I said earlier—there's a $1,000 a month increase on top of the last level of the permanent impaired allowance to make sure the veterans can properly look after their families.

Also not related to Bill C-55, there were a lot of changes in the service delivery to improve, to be streamlined, to be faster, to be quicker, and to be closer to the clientele. The delegation authority has been lowered to district office to make sure people who look after the veterans have the authority to put services in place. We lowered down the time for a disability award from 24 weeks to 16 weeks. New personnel came on to places where they were needed. So we're looking at other initiatives to better serve our clientele.

Now, let's take a look at how the new charter works as compared with the old one.

The case scenario you have there is that of a married corporal who has been released for medical reasons after four years of service. So he is not entitled to a Canadian Forces pension. The corporal in this scenario has a disability assessment of 80%. He was receiving a monthly salary of $4,410, which comes to $3,300 after taxes.

Under the old system, prior to 2006, the member would receive a pension of about $2,400 a month, tax-free for life. His SISIP benefit corresponds to 75% of his salary, but it would be significantly reduced because he collects a pension. Therefore, he would receive an additional $910 per month. In total, this injured member with a medical release would receive $3,300 per month, after taxes, until the age of 65.

Now, let's look at how the new charter helps injured veterans. I will cover the biggest differences. Using the same scenario and the same figures, we will see how the services available under the new charter are there to help our corporal.

First off, even though he had not completed 10 years of service, he would be eligible for the Public Service Health Care Plan if he accessed the rehabilitation program, which, in all probability, he would.

The disability award would be a lump sum of $220,000. For our purposes, his permanent impairment allowance was assessed at the second level, giving him $1,070 per month before taxes. The fact that he receives a disability award has no bearing on his permanent impairment allowance—which is equivalent to 75% of his salary and would be about $3,300 before taxes.

If we add up all the amounts that our corporal receives, we are talking $3,600 per month, after taxes, in addition to a lump sum of $220,000, as well as rehabilitation and family support services.

If we look at the second example, it's probably where you see a bigger difference in how the new charter is helping our veterans. We're looking at a corporal who left the forces voluntarily in 2008, after eight years of service. He was not entitled to any pension because he didn't complete his ten years of service, plus he's looking for a voluntary release. However, during his service he was injured in an automobile accident and it was service-related. Now he works as an electrician, after getting out of the forces, and he has a salary of close to $4,600 a month, which is $3,600 clear after taxes.

In the old system, if we assessed his disability at 20% he would receive close to $700 a month clear of taxes for the rest of his life. That would be it for services under VAC.

If we take the same example and look at how the new charter is helping our veterans, we'll see how the tools work. It's the same planning figures. However, his 20% disability brings him a $52,000 disability award, clear of income taxes.

He enrolled because he has a disability that is service-related. Even though he had a voluntary release from the forces, because of his injuries he has a problem transitioning to civilian life and keeping his employment. If he enrolls in the rehabilitation program, he would receive 75% of the salary he was receiving when he left the forces.

On top of this, he will be able to go through vocational rehabilitation to make sure he finds new employment that respects his physical limitation. At the end of his training he can go back to a good job, earning a good salary, and having new challenges.

That concludes the presentation showing how the changes to the new Veterans Charter are helping our veterans every day.

Thank you very much.

[Bernard Butler]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Storseth.

I think a good example of that would be Bill C-55. When the new Veterans Charter was implemented, it had cross-government, all-party support, and there was a clear recognition on the part of the Government of Canada that there was a compelling and pressing need for transitional support for the modern veterans who were releasing from the military. There was a need for promotion of wellness amongst that group, and there was a need to support their re-establishment into civilian life.

So the charter was adopted, and it was acknowledged at the time that it would require adjustment. There were some studies conducted, and this committee itself has looked at it. The recent enhancements, through Bill C-55, represent significant improvements to the charter, which are clearly indicative of the fact that there is a process to identify gaps and a process to adapt.

Bill C-55 and the enhancements we spoke of a short while ago, in our view, are certainly good examples of how it is adjusting to meet the evolving needs and gaps as they are identified.

[Bernard Butler]

Thanks very much for that query.

Perhaps it might be appropriate for us to look at the components of the $58,000 reference point I made mention of.

With the recent enhancements to the new Veterans Charter, the first component of consequence is a minimum pre-tax income of $40,000. It is for those whom we're releasing at low ranks. With respect to those who may have been out of the military for a period of years, what we realized through various consultations was that the earnings loss benefit was not meeting their basic needs. With the enhancements to the new Veterans Charter, they will receive a minimum $40,000 through the earnings loss benefit program when they're in rehabilitation.

In addition to that, the most seriously impaired qualify for the highest grade of the permanent impairment allowance, which is currently roughly $1,632 a month. Those who are receiving a permanent impairment allowance who are unable to be substantially and gainfully employed are the most seriously disabled veterans we have. They would then qualify for the additional $1,000 per month supplement, which was introduced and implemented with the new Veterans Charter enhancements in Bill C-55. When you add those components together, those individuals in that category would, in fact, be eligible to receive $58,000 in pre-tax income.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Okay.

The reason I bring that up, Mr. Chairman, is that right now, as you know, in order to be eligible for that bed you have to be a World War II or overseas Korean War veteran with a disability. When the last Korean veteran dies, the question is what happens to all those contract beds in the country? For all those veterans who are now in their 60s or 70s, they're not eligible for these beds. Obviously, if he can't answer this question, that's fine, but my thought process on this, for the record, is that those beds will revert back to the provinces. Thus, the members of the armed forces of today will fall under the provincial system if they are to get long-term care, similar to what our World War II guys get.

Sir, you have indicated that Bill C-55 was a positive change to the Veterans Charter, and I agree with you. One of the problems, of course, is that many of those benefits are now taxable. First, I'd like to know why some of those benefits were taxable? Second, you've indicated once again that those benefits are planned until the veterans are 65 years old. What happens to the veteran after the age of 65? In many cases, if I'm not mistaken, they'll be losing money. Do you think that policy is fair to those who live past 65?

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is a smoke and mirrors game. The government gives and then takes away. An example would be Bill C-55. The government moved ahead on the veterans charter and rightfully so. That was a good thing. We asked for a much bigger door, but what it did was make the benefit taxable. It calls the NDP the tax and spend party. The Conservative Party is the give and tax party.

[Bernard Butler, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Charlotte.

Bonjour. Ça me fait plaisir d'être ici encore une fois, Mr. Chair and members, before the committee to share with you some of the progress we're making.

I'm going to talk just very briefly, because I know our time is short, about our benefits and services and how they reflect the change in demographics Charlotte has referred to.

Traditional veteran programming has been in place for many years. And when we talk about traditional veterans we're talking about World War I, World War II, and Korean veterans. For that group of veterans, that older group of veterans, we've had a number of programs that have been in place, as I say, for many, many years. Essentially these were two programs, which we call gateway programs. The first one was the disability pension program, which was designed to compensate veterans for injuries that were service-related. The other major program was an income-tested program, the war veterans allowance. And those were the two main vehicles whereby traditional veterans would access benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

As Charlotte has indicated, we are now in a major transition. This is the first year, the year 2011, when the number of traditional veterans now is actually less than the number of modern veterans we're serving. And modern veterans are defined simply as those Canadian Forces members who have served since the end of the Korean War.

In the early 2000s it became apparent through various discussions with stakeholders, members, and veterans that the traditional programming was not meeting the needs of the younger veterans, particularly in the context of enabling them to move from living and working in a military environment to a civilian environment. Through a period of research and consultation that was quite extensive over time, the Government of Canada adopted, in 2006, the new Veterans Charter. And this was a series of programs basically designed to support the rehabilitation, transition, and reintegration of younger members of the Canadian Forces into civilian life.

On slide 9 you'll see a summary of those benefits and services for modern-day veterans.

We refer to things like disability benefits, which have taken the form now of a disability award, but also major programming to support rehabilitation, financial support, health benefits, and related services.

In the next few weeks there will be major improvements to the new Veterans Charter, which are referred to as Bill C-55, new Veterans Charter enhancements. When these come into effect, they will ensure an additional infusion of financial benefits for the most seriously disabled Canadian Forces members and markedly improve the economic conditions of those individuals who find themselves unable to restore themselves fully. They will benefit markedly from these types of improvements.

Those are some of the changes we are making on the program policy side of the department. You will find that when you compare the two suites of benefits you always have to bear in mind that the policy basis for the benefits and services for traditional veterans has changed and shifted over the last number of years. So we've moved away from a pension model to a wellness, re-establishment, and rehabilitation model. And that's what the new Veterans Charter is essentially all about.

As Charlotte has indicated, there is a whole range of other programs that modern-day veterans can access through the department. Some of these relate to our mental health strategy, which is designed to address the emerging mental health challenges of the younger modern veteran, with a series of operational clinics across the country. We have beefed up resources in terms of our capacity and our case management across the country and have specialized mental health resources that are available to support members and veterans who are transitioning and have these types of challenges.

That's just a very quick overview of some of the changes we are engaged in, in terms of programming and services.

With that, I'm just going to skip quickly to the last slide of the deck.

Remembrance programming is another key element of what engages Veterans Affairs. I understand that our director general for Canada Remembers will actually be appearing before the committee over the next short while, and there will be ample opportunity at that time to have a more fulsome discussion of that.

Mr. Chairman, in consideration of your very tight time limits I'm going to cease talking and turn the floor back to you.

Veterans

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about two things.

First of all, today, March 25, 2011, there are 685,000 seniors in our country who will remember that these three parties are joining together to prevent them from getting an additional $600 per year through the guaranteed income supplement. That is what the opposition is doing.

Second of all, is that there is good news for our veterans. The members of this party will be able to look our veterans in the eye and say that they have done something good for them. Yesterday, Bill C-55 received royal assent, and it will provide them with new support if they are wounded.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we are currently working to identify veterans who are homeless. We have identified 76 veterans who were not receiving any services, since we did not know where they were. Now, thanks to our pilot projects in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, we are seeing results.

Today, I have good news to share with the members of this House and our veterans. Yesterday, Bill C-55, which will provide new services to our seriously wounded modern-day veterans, received royal assent. This will mean $2 billion for our veterans.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

March 24, 2011

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the schedule to this letter on the 24th day of March, 2011, at 4:02 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act—Chapter 12.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to raise a point of order, though, Mr. Chair. I would like Mr. Easter to withdraw his unnecessary, unparliamentary comments that he made earlier in the committee meeting. I don't want to reiterate the words he said. They were very unparliamentary. If he withdraws them publicly now, I will not bring it forward to the House.

The other issue is that on this he has called us on this side liars. This is a pattern that happened yesterday in the veterans affairs committee. When the minister brought forward Bill C-55 and accused the Liberal opposition in the Senate of blocking the expedition without giving unanimous consent, the Liberal critic, Ms. Sgro, accused us of being liars. She has yet today to find out that she was wrong. In fact, the Liberals did block Bill C-55 in the Senate, with unanimous consent. Here, once again, we have a member, a Liberal critic—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I have a couple of items.

First, I wonder if the analyst can give us some more formal understanding in the future as to how VRAB became a separate agency. I'm not quite sure when or why that happened, but it would be interesting to know why the department did that.

Second, Mr. Chairman--and I say this with great respect--we can't have any more cancelled meetings. You don't need witnesses to have a meeting. I understand what you're trying to do and what the clerk was doing, but there are many things we can discuss among ourselves in a cooperative nature in order to move certain things forward to help the department, so I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, that there be no more cancelled meetings, if it's possible.

The third part is that 112 North is empty right now, and I'm wondering why we can't get that room. I say it with great respect. There's the television, but it would be nice to have that room back. I know veterans, when they come in, feel more comfortable, and it's easier. Maybe I'm getting lazy in my old age, but it's right down there after question period. It's right there. I wonder why we can't have that.

Lastly, the previous witness we had before this told us that over 3,500 individuals will be assisted by Bill C-55. We know that not to be true. Those are the regulation changes, not legislative changes, so I'd just like the committee to keep in mind that experts from DVA can come in and give us erroneous or false information, or maybe they just made a serious error in judgment. I don't know, but when they answered 3,500, the real answer was 500 over five years. That's quite a change in figures. I just wanted to leave it out there that sometimes department officials aren't necessarily correct themselves.

If we could just halt the cancelled meetings, we could talk about whatever. It would be a nice way to spend a couple of hours with my friends on both sides of the fence here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Second, this is a budget for witnesses for Bill C-55. The amount requested is $4,400.00. That was for witness expenses; then we had a video conference, and there were miscellaneous expenses. It's $4,400.00.

Can I have a motion to accept that budget?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Yes, I had some very specific goals in mind for the tour across Canada.

I first wanted to meet with our staff, of course, everywhere we have an office in the regions we were visiting. I also wanted to meet with the organizations representing our veterans. Finally, I wanted to see the residences and shelters available to assist the homeless so that we could talk with stakeholders about their methods of identifying homeless people and see what kind of measures they were taking to support them.

Of course, I also went to military bases to tell our forces what we were hoping to achieve with Bill C-55. I noticed that people did not seem to have the right information. They were not aware of what was in the new charter or what would happen to them once they left the Canadian Forces, if they got to that point. They were not aware of the services they would get from our department. They were surprised to see all the services that we would provide them with and that we are currently improving to better serve their needs.

I would like to go back to the lump sum payment. With Bill C-55, we would be changing the lump sum payment so that they could either take a one-time payment or spread it over how many years they choose. That does not mean they would be making the right decision.

If you were in their shoes, what would you do? You would ask your spouse, your friends or your family what was best for you to do in your situation. Would it be better to take some of the money to buy a house? Or would it be better to spread it over time, as some of them have already received $250,000 from the Department of National Defence? Those are the changes we are making, and they are a real improvement.

We would certainly like to give more. That's always the case. But we have been going in the order of priorities. We consulted with veterans' organizations. We asked them what changes were most urgent. And we established the priorities with them. They are backing us up as we speak. They are urging the government, the Senate and everyone else to pass this legislation in the coming days, since we don't know what looms ahead in the House of Commons.

These types of tours are really important. They allow us to reach people. People can then meet with me and share how things are.

Even in the House of Commons—I can ask the members—how many times have you come to me with an envelope, not a brown envelope...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That's registered on television too, I'm quite sure.

Let's just settle down here for a minute and realize that we're at an estimates meeting. I think we've heard two or three times that we're not on Bill C-55, and all we've dealt with is Bill C-55.

Please ask some questions, Mr. Blaney, and please, let's talk about the estimates. I'm quite sure the estimates will also be impacted by Bill C-55. That is where we are, and we're going to go to questions, please. We will, as a committee, make mention to the Senate that maybe they can get Bill C-55 through quickly.

Could we have a question, please?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is unfair comment. We work, as you know, in a non-partisan way. We passed Bill C-55 in one meeting, and I think it's unfair that members are using that opportunity to say things that aren't even true.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very honoured to be replacing the parliamentary secretary and I thank my colleagues for having faith in me today.

I would first like to congratulate the minister for Bill C-55, which addresses many of the gaps you pointed out. I obviously think it is unfortunate, especially for our veterans, that the Liberal members of the Senate have not given their unanimous consent in order to move the bill forward as quickly as possible.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister. We are pleased to have you with us today. I think this is the first time that you have appeared before this committee.

As you said, we have met with many veterans and several groups. I was surprised to hear you say that the services for veterans were moving forward, that you were improving the system and that you expected further achievements down the road.

We heard several witnesses: the president of the Royal 22^nd Regiment Association, Mr. Renaud; retired Colonel Pat Stogran, a former veterans' ombudsman whose contract you did not renew; Mr. Bruce Henwood, from the Special Needs Advisory Group; Mr. Victor Marshall, chair of the Gerontological Advisory Council; Mr. Sean Bruyea, a former member of the armed forces. Mr. Mark Campbell, a soldier who stepped on a bomb in June 2008, also appeared before another committee. The generally held opinion was that the New Veterans Charter deprives disabled veterans of 40% of their income.

According to several witnesses we heard here when we studied the New Veterans Charter, it seems undeniable that the abolition of the monthly pension in favour of a lump sum payment greatly penalizes a number of veterans.

We in fact saw certain statistics in this regard. A person with a 20% disability used to receive approximately $600 to $800 monthly. Now that person would receive approximately $50,000.

If you were 21 or 22 years old, Mr. Blackburn, and you were given a choice between receiving $600 to $800 per month for life and receiving a sum of $50,000, which would you choose?

How can you tell us that you are improving the situation for veterans when you are depriving these people of a large part of their potential income by abolishing this monthly lifetime benefit? You know very well that in Quebec, as well as in other provinces in Canada, petitions were circulated asking that the lump sum payment be abolished in favour of a return to a monthly lifetime pension.

There are young people who have accidents when they are 20 or 25 years old. If, as Bill C-55 provides, this lump sum payment of $50,000 is divided into two or three payments, that only amounts to $10,000 or $15,000. It is not sufficient, it won't allow disabled persons to meet their needs for the rest of their life.

What happens in those cases?

Some mothers came here to tell us that it was often the family that then had to take on the costs related to a soldier's serious injury.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you for your comments and questions.

With regard to our veterans who are returning from Afghanistan, we have put in place a special team to process their files more quickly. For instance, decisions on rehabilitation programs are handed down within a two-week time frame. As for benefits they may obtain under the department's various programs, be it the disability benefit or others, we have also accelerated the process and we can respond to their applications within 16 weeks. People may wonder why it takes 16 weeks when it should be done within three or four. There are also all sorts of reasons for that. Previously the turnaround time was 24 weeks, it is now 16, and we are continuing to improve the process. However, in order to make a decision we need all of the relevant information, the medical information in particular. It is very important that our employees have all of the documents in hand so as to be able to make a decision. Often, some of the information comes from the Department of National Defence, in particular the files and other documents, and all of this takes time.

Allow me to tell you that we are really making progress, making improvements. In the coming days our frontline employees will have the power to make decisions. And so they will no longer have to refer the case to levels above them, which led to delay after delay. The whole process within the department is evolving in order to meet our veterans' needs more quickly.

In addition, I will not deny that our department has aged as our veterans have, veterans of the Second World War, the Korean War and our various peace missions. And then our modern- day veterans appeared. We were not prepared from this sudden culture change, and the change in the needs of our modern-day veterans. These are completely different needs, as compared to those of our older veterans. For instance, we were not prepared to process their files using the Internet, and we are still not able to do so. This is one of the changes we are making. We will see what answers tomorrow's budget will contain in this regard. We are truly undergoing a period of major change and we are taking that reality into account, and the needs of our military people.

I also want to point out that we are processing our modern-day veterans' files in light of the New Veterans Charter approved in 2005. This should be an evolving charter but in reality there were no changes made over four or four and half years. Why was this the case? The situation was not the same. When our modern-day veterans come back injured from Afghanistan, for instance after having had a leg amputated, they are still members of the armed forces and they remain there during two or three years on full salary. It is only after that period that they deal with us and that they really come under Veterans Affairs Canada. All of this reality caught up with us quickly over the past 18 months, and this has meant that we must now pick up our pace. This is what we are doing at this time. Bill C-55 has not yet been passed. For that reason, we will not be able to give our modern-day veterans all of the benefits we want to give them. All of the flaws that need to be corrected will not be as long as the bill has not become law. Moreover, there will be a six-month lag before the regulations come into effect.

I tried to give you some specific details to reply to your comments.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Blackburn. I'm glad that we finally have you here before the committee. You've been the minister for quite a while and, for a variety of reasons, this is your first chance to come before us, so I'm glad that you're here. Thank you for coming and attempting to address us and for hearing some of the issues that we hear on a day-to-day basis from veterans and their families when they come before us.

We certainly hear from our departmental officials, with their desire to make a difference, but we also hear from many about the inadequacies and the large percentage of our veterans who are not getting their needs met. Given the fact that we have a lot of men and women coming home from Afghanistan in the next short while, I would expect an increase in the budget. I know you also referred to the fact that there would be a decrease in other areas.

How are you planning to ensure that your department will be sensitive to the many needs of the men and women who are coming home? How are you going to monitor the refusal rate of so many veterans, who come to us here and express their frustration with the department because of not being able to get satisfactory services, experiencing far too much red tape, and so on?

Regulation change could have been done instead of Bill C-55 on some of these issues. Why did you not choose to go that route, and why did you instead introduce a bill that will require a lengthy time to make these changes?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chair, as far as these budget numbers go, it is important to understand that every action and decision made at the Department of Veterans Affairs is geared toward improving services and benefits for Canada's most deserving citizens.

The changing demographic profile of Canada's veterans, their changing needs and requirements, and our involvement in Afghanistan have all resulted in more modern-day veterans than we anticipated applying for and receiving benefits under the New Veterans Charter. We are also seeing situations where new medical conditions arise at a later date or where additional difficulties affect veterans. As a result, veterans who already receive a benefit are coming back to us for additional help.

I also want to point out that our efforts over the past year to improve the process of awarding disability benefits have contributed to this increased spending. As of the end of February 2011, the number of disability claims processed increased by 15% this year over last year. As a result, we've put $72 million more in the hands of Canada's veterans.

We have also seen an increase in the uptake of the rehabilitation and career transition programs. The year after the New Veterans Charter was introduced, there were just over 1,100 veterans taking advantage of these programs. This year, there were over 3,800, and we are forecasting over 4,600 next year. That's a 22% increase. It is important to keep in mind that Canada's veterans and their families are the main beneficiaries of this spending growth.

Mr. Chair, you will also notice that we asked for an additional $9.4 million to support the veterans independence program. This reflects the fact that Canada's veterans are still in good health. Our traditional war service veterans are living longer and healthier lives, so they are able to remain in their homes with the help of grounds keeping and housekeeping services. This means fewer of them are moving to long-term care facilities. Again, this is another indication that our programs are effective and being well-used by veterans.

In relation to the spending on the Agent Orange program, I made an announcement in Fredericton back in December that the program would be extended. Our government committed additional funding, some of which is reflected in the numbers you see for both this year and next year. Essentially, that allowed us to change the program's criteria. First, we removed a restriction on eligibility. That allowed more widows to apply for the ex-gratia payment. Second, we changed the date in terms of getting a diagnosis. Since the announcement, we have contacted nearly 1,300 individuals to obtain consent to review their file, and we actually have received a number of new applications as well. The bottom line is that as of March 11, 2011, we have approved payments for over 300 individuals.

Once again, these increases speak to a desire to improve the quality of life for Canada's veterans and their families. They also underline some of the fundamental changes made to how we conduct business at the department these days. We are making real progress in reducing the complexity of the processes and programs, overhauling service delivery, strengthening partnerships with the Department of National Defence and others, sustaining the New Veterans Charter, and adapting the department to the changing demographics of our veterans.

As I mentioned, productivity at Veterans Affairs is up by about 15%. We have increased our team of adjudicators, improved our business processes and introduced better monitoring. We are doing a better job of communicating with veterans, giving clearer direction as to the type of information we need in order to be able to move forward with an application.

We have also made certain investments in technology. These are minor investments for the moment, and of course we have to quicken our pace. We will do more on this front.

I must mention other important progress: between January 2010 and January 2011, we reduced the number of disability claims waiting to be adjudicated by 36%. We are processing disability applications faster. As of early this month, March 8, 78% of first applications were completed within 16 weeks. The result, of course, impacts our budget for the upcoming year.

For 2011-2012, we project spending $3.5 billion, an increase of $109.1 million in comparison to the previous main estimates, or 3.2% from the previous year. I wish to point out that expenses related to Bill C-55 will not be added to the budget as long as the law has not been enacted, but we have provided for the costs related to the program. Some projects have already been approved and there are several others to come.

And finally, Mr. Chair, I don't want to leave you with the impression that all we do is spend money at Veterans Affairs Canada. We are very cognizant of the tight fiscal environment in which our country finds itself. There are some decreases in next year's anticipated spending amounting to $85 million. This is due to a decrease in the forecasted number of War Service Veterans who will receive benefits from the department. As such, some program spending has been adjusted downward.

As well, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has been established as a separate entity under the Financial Administration Act, which means that the expenditure will no longer appear in the department's spending. These estimates represent an important commitment by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Government of Canada to invest significantly in the health and well-being of Canada's veterans and their families.

I have enjoyed travelling across the country these last few months and talking with our veterans and telling them about the service improvements taking place in their name. Their feedback and yours have been invaluable, as has been the advice from their advocates. I of course plan to continue that dialogue to ensure all of our programs and services are continuously adapted and adjusted to better fit the evolving needs of both our traditional and modern-day veterans and their families.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I want to say something regarding the point of order, Mr. Chair.

I find it inappropriate to interrupt the witness, who has come here to meet with us today. First of all, my colleague's comments are out of place. The Prime Minister impressed upon us the importance of getting Bill C-55 passed quickly. He put the situation into context.

I think the members of this committee should at least have the decency to listen to what the witness has to say. Afterwards, every member will have an opportunity to ask the minister questions.

Interrupting the witness while he is making his opening statement is uncalled for.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Excuse me for interrupting. The minister is here to talk about the estimates, and talking about a Conservative-dominated Senate and saying that the Liberals are holding up Bill C-55 is, I think, totally out of line. It's out of line to be mentioning it. I suggest that it's probably not even true, because we have been very committed and have been on the record, and this committee put it through very quickly.

I really object to the minister going off what he should be talking about--the supplementary estimates, which is what he came here for--and making accusations, which at this particular moment I'm not going to be running over to the Senate to find out about, because I know it's a Conservative-dominated Senate and no longer a Liberal-dominated Senate.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, fellow parliamentarians and all of you here today, ladies and gentlemen.

I am pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to present the budgetary estimates for my department, Veterans Affairs Canada, for the last fiscal year and the upcoming one.

But before I get into the numbers, I would first like to thank the members of the committee for their work on Bill C-55. Thanks to your understanding and compassion, we have been able to move quickly towards the passage of this meaningful bill in the House of Commons. I thank you and Canada's veterans thank you.

Allow me to digress for a moment. We wanted to fast-track this bill through the Senate. But it seems that the Liberal senators would not let that happen, I have just learned. I am not sure whether you can intervene to help us at all, but we all know how important it is that we vote on the bill as soon as possible. There is talk of a vote of non-confidence in the government on Friday. At least we will have done everything we could on our end.

Once the bill known as the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act has received royal assent, it will give our most seriously injured soldiers broader access to better financial support as they transition to civilian life. We can all agree that these changes are a step in the right direction.

As Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent told the committee on March 1, this bill is a small but important step that should not be delayed to try to improve it at this stage. That work will continue as we go forward.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made March 9, Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, be read the third time and passed.

Veterans Affairs

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the individual responsible for this file has in fact contacted Major Campbell. Veterans Affairs Canada has several programs to help injured soldiers returning from Afghanistan, among others.

Indeed, there will be a vote in the House today on Bill C-55, which will bring further improvements to help our modern-day veterans, in order to ensure that they and their families do not experience financial difficulties.

Veterans

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised two points in his question. He is talking about veterans as well as the F-35s.

As for veterans, I would like to tell the member that today in this House we will be voting on Bill C-55, which will ensure that our modern-day veterans receive more financial help if, unfortunately, they come back wounded from Afghanistan or any other mission. There are three different benefits that will be amended in order to help our modern-day veterans.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the NDP to debate the third reading of Bill C-55.

I want to say at the outset that when the bill first came to us in November, we looked at it very carefully and talked to various organizations and individuals, and we gave the minister our private and public support for Bill C-55, on the premise though, and this was a great big but, that the minister and department had told us and the House that further changes were coming.

We welcome this type of dialogue. It is for this reason that I want to personally congratulate the minister for what he surely recognizes, the ongoing concerns our veterans and their families, and RCMP members and their families are facing in this country.

The fact is that Bill C-55 is a short step forward, a minor step forward to be completely honest. We know where the difficulties lie within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We know that we can never ever have enough money to do everything that we wish to do.

However, we can streamline the process. We can make sure that veterans and their families, and RCMP members and their families do not have to go on television to plead their case before the nation, as Major Mark Campbell did just the other day on CTV in Calgary.

Let us think about that. Here is a hero of our country who lost both his legs in Afghanistan, who said very clearly, “I didn't end up this way just so I could earn 25 per cent less than I did before I lost my legs”.

No veteran, especially a disabled veteran, either psychologically or physically, should have to do that. It should be a no-brainer. The department should have immediately sat down with him, assessed his needs and determined exactly what he required to carry on with his life.

On the new veterans charter, let me provide members with a little historical asterisk. I remember the great Jack Stagg, who was probably one of Canada's finest public servants. He helped negotiate the Marshall decision in 1999 regarding Donald Marshall, the aboriginal Canadian. He helped in the creation of Nunavut. Most importantly in my mind, Jack Stagg was instrumental in developing a new veterans charter.

I remember sitting with Jack Stagg, and rest his soul, as he is no longer with us, and the department. They were very clear that the veterans charter might have the odd flaw, but they wanted to change the paradigm of veterans' care from not just giving veterans money and keeping them at home for the rest of their natural lives, but providing them and their families with educational opportunities and providing rehabilitation services where they could become productively employed members of our society.

I say this because many of these veterans are quite young. In fact, if I am not mistaken, our youngest veteran in the country is about 19 years old. I believe our oldest, if I am not mistaken, is about 102 or 103 years old. There is a wide range of veterans in this particular regard.

It is true that it is a challenge within the department to recognize the needs of and assistance required by these various age groups and the various indications of disabilities, psychological, mental or physical they may have and what they require. There is not one policy that fits all.

When the four leaders at that time came back from Holland in 2005 they recognized that the charter was a good thing. It was then passed in this House on the premise that it was a living document, meaning a document that implied that when there were problems and anomalies and errors, they would be corrected and be corrected rather quickly.

Our challenge is that we are now five years into the charter, and Bill C-55 is the first opportunity for change. This opportunity for change is a small step. The government had every opportunity to make a huge step to improve the lives of veterans, RCMP members and their families, but it chose a smaller step.

I do not buy the argument of fiscal restraint. For example, the government can allocate, at the snap of its fingers in an untendered contract, $30 billion for new jet fighters. And do not get me wrong on this, because the CF-18s indeed need to be replaced, but we just do not know if the F-35 is the right type of aircraft. However, if the government can be that aggressive on that type of procurement, then surely to God it could be that aggressive when it comes to helping veterans. Surely to God, veterans should not have to wait years to get a hearing and then when they get to that hearing, their claim is denied. Why are they denied? It because of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

I say directly to the minister, and I am glad that he is here, that this is the problem in his department, not the staff. There are 4,000 wonderful people working in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and every day they get up and try to do the very best they can for Canada's heroes.

The problem is the politically appointed Veterans Review and Appeal Board. There are 24 people on that board, which has a budget of $11.5 million. It also has a director general for 24 people, and 19 of them are political appointees, and four of them have some form of military experience and one has some form of medical training, but I do not believe the person is a doctor.

Yet if the veteran, Steve Dornan, of Annapolis Valley has five different cases of medical evidence, and even the federal court has said that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has no right to declare his medical evidence as not credible, how does a person, without being a doctor, without being trained, without military experience, without RCMP experience, adjudicate cases of veterans and their families?

Mr. Dornan and wife Roseann have been fighting for nine years. They have the medical evidence. The federal court ruled that the medical evidence was credible. Since when do unaccountable people in the VRAB make that decision?

Then we hear from the minister and the department on letter after letter that I have forwarded to them, and we see the benefit of the doubt not being applied in any of the over 600 veterans' cases I have worked on since 1997. That is despite section 39 of the legislation stating quite clearly that the benefit of the doubt has to be applied if there is evidence that the injury or psychological concern may have been caused by military or RCMP duty. I have yet to see that applied.

These people sit in that tower in Charlottetown and make decisions that frustrate the living hell out of these men and women. Steve Dornan should not have to go to the newspapers to get help. Major Campbell should not have had to go before the media to get help.

We all remember Brian Dyck, that great man from Ottawa who did a press conference with the former ombudsman, Pat Stogran. Just before he died from ALS, he said very clearly to all of us, not just to the government but to all Canadians: “My advice to the ministry is if you are not willing to stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them”. Unfortunately, he died.

However, I give the government top marks as it then immediately recognized that military veterans with ALS would then get the coverage they needed. The government did not have to move legislation for that; it was a regulatory change. The government did not need Bill C-55 or to bring something else before us, but it did it immediately. The government has the power and wherewithal to do this.

However, I will say again that veterans should not have to go public to get the help they need. They are our heroes.

We were told by a senior official in committee that Bill C-55 was going to help 3,500 people. That is not true. Research by the Library of Parliament shows that it will only help 500 people over five years. Where the additional veterans will get help is not from the legislated changes in Bill C-55, but in the regulatory changes. We do not need legislation to change regulations.

We heard from the minister, and god love him for it, that this is a $2 billion investment. Again, that is like telling a guy who makes $30,000 a year that he is going to make $1 million over 40 years. We cannot really do that.

I could go and on regarding veterans and their families, but I do thank the minister for moving Bill C-55 forward. However, I encourage the minister and the government to move much faster. If the government can give Christiane Ouimet a half million dollars for not doing her work, then it can turn around and give veterans the money and the programs they need to get back to a normal life.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her passionate speech and her support for the veterans in her riding.

I, too, have been a strong advocate for the veterans in my riding. I think of Joe, Tiny and Bill who all come into my office and talk to me about the issues they are having.

It is great that we are talking about Bill C-55 and getting that money out there. Once we get the bill passed, the money is there, but the problem they are having is getting the money. They are being denied claim after claim.

Is it not time that we actually find some way, through Bill C-55, to ensure our veterans get the money they deserve, rather than having to come and see us all the time and beg, plead and borrow to ensure they get the money they deserve and fought for?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-55. As the daughter of a soldier who served for six years in the last world war, I completely agree with the demands of our soldiers who return from the front. Their needs must be taken into consideration. When soldiers are at the front, everyone sings their praises and speaks about them with great enthusiasm. Everyone says how important their work is and how various countries would never achieve freedom if they were not there.

When our soldiers, both male and female, are at the front—there are more and more women enlisting—they are always being praised. However, when they return, we thank those who went to war for their efforts and then often we forget about them. But, their injuries are not just physical injuries; often they are injuries to the soul. These injuries may not be apparent, at least not when the soldiers first return from combat. Sometimes it takes them a number of years to discover just how much they have been affected by combat and the atrocities they witnessed on the ground. They do not want to talk to anyone about it because soldiers do not want to be seen as weak. Female soldiers have also been taught to be strong in order to defend people in various troubled countries.

My mother married my father in 1949. He was returning from war, where he fought from 1939 to 1945. He was a scout throughout the entire war. He participated in the campaigns in Italy, Poland, England and Africa. He slept in the trenches for six years, eating monkey meat, as he called it. He did that for six years—not six or eight months—before returning to Quebec, resting and returning to the front lines six months later. For six years non-stop, he was on the front lines. When he returned in 1949, he suffered from chronic bronchitis. He was told that it was not a result of the war and he was refused a pension.

My mother fought from 1949 to 1987 to for my father to receive something. It took 38 years for my father to finally get recognition from his country for what he had done. After 38 years, still today, we see men and women fighting to be recognized for what they have done for their country. They are not recognized. Now, the government will give $1,000 a month to wounded soldiers who cannot work for the rest of their lives, but that $1,000 is taxable. Big deal.

They will receive their lump sum payments, even though we know very well that when people get a lot of money all at once they spend it. Life is expensive. Soldiers return home from the war and their families are affected because these soldiers have gone to and from Afghanistan or other theatres of war several times. They see the most terrible things, such as seeing their fellow soldiers killed in front of them or blown up by a bomb. And we think that those scars are not permanent? Psychological wounds may not look as frightening, but they are permanent. And they are not adequately taken into account.

The people who evaluate returning soldiers work for the government. But the government wants to pay out as little as possible. That has been the case for years. They are giving less to our military personnel who are coming back from combat. Are they worth less because they are coming back from combat and are older? Is that it? When they are in combat, they are taken care of and are paid well, but as soon as they come back, it is a different story.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill despite its lack of a broad approach to help soldiers regain what they deserve, like the lifetime pension, for example. How could the government have taken that away? The last survivor of the first world war died recently. They do not need to take care of them anymore.

My mother is 82, soon to be 83. Last year she became entitled to help, despite the fact that she had taken care of my father for many years and her health was failing. She did not want outside help because she said she was capable of doing it herself. It was her husband and her duty. She felt that she was capable.

In 1971, before my father received anything from the government, he was decorated by England, Poland and Italy. Three governments recognized the work he had done to free them. Our government did nothing, absolutely nothing for us. He got hearing aids. Hearing bombs and constant explosions will obviously affect your hearing eventually. He got his hearing aids a few months before he died. And that could not be blamed on the war either. He could not hear a thing, but that was normal deterioration.

I do not know what to say to make my colleagues across the floor understand that this bill must be improved, that we need to bring back the lifetime pension, that our soldiers deserve a lifetime pension, that when soldiers return home after fighting on the front lines, they deserve the respect of their fellow citizens, but more importantly, the respect of the government and MPs. I still hope that people will remember, that the government will correct the situation in order to give our soldiers as much support as possible and stop being tight-fisted. The government is not skimping on the F-35s. It is not skimping on money for arms. It is not skimping on money for Afghanistan. So it should stop skimping on the money it gives to our soldiers. They are entitled to that money. Our men and women in uniform fought for us. When they return home, they deserve a minimum of respect and they need to know that their efforts are appreciated.

I find it very unfortunate that we are still discussing this in 2011. I would have thought that the government would understand by now. Every year, we commemorate the armistice. We lay wreaths on Remembrance Day for our fallen soldiers. We lay wreaths, and then we go about our business for the rest of the day. The legion is the only organization that continues to care about our soldiers, and legions have fewer and fewer volunteers because people are dying. People are dying and those still with us are less enthusiastic than in the past and less able to defend their rights. And those who are returning from the mission in Afghanistan are also not able to defend themselves. It takes months and years to get over that.

I remember that my father never wanted to talk about the war. In 1978, McGill University asked him to do a series of interviews over a period of six months during which he talked about what he experienced in the war. These interviews were confidential. We were not allowed to attend and they remained confidential. The research has remained confidential. After his death, we tried to obtain copies in order to find out what happened. We never were able to get a copy, but I know that when he started talking about what he experienced during the war, he would cry every time he watched the armistice commemoration on television.

For our soldiers, I am calling on the House—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour on one thing. In committee a senior department official told us that over 3,500 veterans would benefit from Bill C-55 over five years. That is actually incorrect. Careful research by the Parliamentary Library indicates that only 500 veterans would benefit from these changes. A possible 2,320 veterans would be subject to enhanced benefits from regulatory changes, not legislative changes. The government did not need to introduce legislation to make changes to the regulations to assist more veterans.

In fact, the minister said that this would be a $2 billion enhancement. That is like telling a guy who plans on working for 40 years and is making $30,000 a year that he is going to make $1 million. The reality is $2 billion will be spread over an incredibly long period of time. The average cost of Bill C-55 would be $50 million a year. We thank the minister for that very tiny increase.

My question for my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is this. Why did the government not take a bigger lead in enhancing benefits—

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the point is when people serve in the Canadian Forces, that is their employer. The Canadian government is not only their employer, but also provides other benefits, just as it does to other people who get benefits from their employers and still are entitled to benefits from the Government of Canada. There is an awful lot of veterans in our country who are not receiving benefits, or cannot get benefits or have trouble getting benefits and they end up in the offices of parliamentarians. We can do a lot better.

Any time the minister has been in Halifax, he has been very gracious in ensuring that parliamentarians of all stripes are brought forward at meetings, commendation ceremonies and things like that. That does not happen with departments. It has been my experience that, as minister, he has been gracious in ensuring the veterans issue is as non-partisan as possible.

While we all support Bill C-55, any MP who meets with veterans in his or her office, and I meet with a lot of them, knows we need to do a lot more. This needs to be the start and not the end of the journey.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his support, and take this opportunity to elaborate on an important point that must be taken into consideration.

Injured soldiers are still employees of the Department of National Defence when they return home. In compensation for their injuries, the Department of National Defence will pay them an amount of up to $250,000. Then, when they are no longer employed by DND, they will be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In addition to the $250,000 from the Department of National Defence, they will also receive another lump sum payment that can reach up to $285,000 plus the amounts I mentioned. A veteran participating in a rehabilitation program will receive $40,000 per year. If they do not participate in a rehabilitation program because their injuries are too serious and they cannot return to work, they will receive a minimum of $58,000 a year.

Thus, there is an initial amount of $250,000 from the Department of National Defence; a second amount of up to $285,000, depending on the extent of the injuries, from the Department of Veterans Affairs; and the other measures that I just mentioned.

I know that no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a limb or another injury, but our responsibility is to ensure that veterans and their families are at least financially stable. For that reason, I urge all members to support Bill C-55 and thus improve the situation of our modern-day veterans.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act.

According to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Bill C-55 is only the first step to addressing the concerns of veterans. However, we agree that it is a good first step and we congratulate the initiative.

The proposed legislation is a small step forward. We have supported the bill because our veterans need urgent help now and because the minister assures us that further changes will come. We hope this represents a significant change in thinking, in acting, that will address other gaps.

I would like to acknowledge our critic on veterans affairs, the member for Etobicoke North. In the short time that she has been in the House, she has earned admiration from all sides for her diligent and very capable work. She is passionate about the issue of veterans. She has travelled extensively and met with veterans. One only needs to chat with her to understand how seriously, deeply and personally she connects with our veterans.

Just before Christmas she was in Nova Scotia speaking in the town hall on veterans' issues with the member for Halifax West. I had a chance to have her meet with some of my constituents. I remember sitting at a Starbucks, chatting with Bruce Grainger, who many people in the House would know. I am sure the members for Sackville—Eastern Shore and Halifax West would know Bruce. Bruce is a veteran who served our country with distinction. Now his concern is for other veterans. He has put forward some ideas for the minister that perhaps we need to bring more veterans into Veterans Affairs and on the review and appeal boards. We need to respect that kind of passion from Canada's veterans.

What we owe our men and women who have put the uniform on is to honour our sacred trust and to be there for them when they come home. That means working to improve their pay and benefits so they feel secure knowing their families will be looked after. That means working to improve care for wounded warriors, especially those with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. What we owe them is to provide the care they need until the end of their lives, for example, ensuring long-term care so no veteran should have to suffer dementia and PTSD in a facility not equipped to meeting his or her needs.

Sadly, instead of trying to repay our obligation, we have let them down on many issues. For example, too many veterans go untreated for PTSD, too many veterans have nowhere safe to sleep at night, too many veterans suffer traumatic brain injury. It was shameful when a 92-year old veteran in Edmonton said, “There's a long road to go to make this right and you must not give up speaking to us because we never did”, speaking of himself and his colleagues.

The minister tabled Bill C-55 on November 17, 2010. The proposed legislation brought together several of the fall announcements and would make changes to the new veterans charter, as called for by several veterans organizations, including the Royal Canadian Legion, and would introduce changes to the administration of the lump sum disability award. Specifically, Bill C-55 would amend parts 1 to 3 of the new veterans charter as well as part IV of the Pension Act.

There are important changes in the proposed legislation: at least $58,000 per year for seriously wounded or ill veterans, those too injured to return to the workforce; a minimum of $40,000 per year no matter what the salary when serving in the CF for those receiving the monthly earnings loss benefit; an additional monthly payment of $1,000 for life to help our most seriously wounded veterans who are no longer able to work; and improved access to the permanent impairment allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance, which will include 3,500 more veterans.

On behalf of veterans, I must ask why the government waited four years to propose any change to the new veterans charter, which has been hailed as a living document, a work in progress that would be continually adapted to meet the changing needs of veterans.

I must also ask why Veterans Affairs Canada did not live up to its 2006 commitment to review lump-sum awards for a disability pension within two years.

While the minister promised new improvements to the lump sum payment, the government merely divided up the payment differently, for example, as a partial lump sum and partial annual payments over any number of years the recipient chooses, or as a single lump sum payment.

Despite this, parties came together to ensure the passage of Bill C-55 and its extra support for veterans because our veterans need urgent help now and because veterans organizations across the country, including the Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping and the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association have asked us to do so.

I come from an area with a rich military history. We recently lost retired Brigadier-General Ned Amy, who had served with such distinction. We have had many giants in Nova Scotia in military history. One of the great giants was a diminutive man who barely cracked five feet tall but made such a difference.

I think of sitting at the Battle of the Atlantic dinner with Murray Knowles, Earle Wagner and some of the great heroes who have served our country, many of whom went across the cold North Atlantic in the corvettes, the last one of which is HMCS Sackville, which is nearing the end of its useful life in the water and has to come ashore. One way the government could support what veterans want in recognition of what they have done for us is put money into the proposal to bring HMCS Sackville ashore in Halifax.

Dominion president Pat Varga spoke of this bill, saying:

This bill, as a first step, makes great strides in improving the New Veterans Charter and encompasses many of the recommendations made by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The Legion considers that further improvements are needed to the Charter on which we look forward to continue the ongoing dialogue with [the] Minister...

Many things have been brought forward by the legion. In the future, the Royal Canadian Legion would still like the department to address the amount of the lump sum payment, the $276,000. In Canada, disabled workers receive, on average, $329,000, Australian service members received about $325,000. British service members receive many times that figure. The legion feels those injured, while serving their country, should expect to receive at least the same amount awarded to civilian workers whose lives have been drastically changed by circumstances beyond their control.

This is a bill that parliamentarians from all parties are happy to come together and speak in favour of.

I want to talk about where we are in Canada today.

It is no secret that Parliament is facing a volatile time. There are serious issues being discussed in the chamber that go to the heart of our traditions and customs. There is a hardening of opinion on all sides and the stakes are high, indeed. It is a tense time and yet a delicate time and I do not think anybody knows for sure where this will end up.

It is happening in Parliament where the people of Canada have a voice. In Canada, we use words and not swords and we determine who governs our nation by using ballots and not bullets. However, privilege did not come by default. It was not inevitable. It is the dividend of the blood and sacrifice of those who left their homes and families, went to lands many never heard of before and put their lives on the line. Some never came home, and it happens to this day.

As we pass Bill C-55 and parliamentarians consider their responsibilities, let us remember the men and women who have given up the opportunities they had so we could do this in a free country. It is appropriate in this tumultuous time in Canadian democracy to remember that the veterans have brought us all and Parliament together. Once again, it is the men and women who have fought for Canada who have showed us how democracy should work. We can do much more to honour that sacrifice. I hope today is just the start.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that until Bill C-55 comes into force, the amounts I mentioned will not be available. We are still operating under the charter that was adopted in 2005. As soon as Bill C-55 is in place, as soon as it is passed by the Senate, it will be five or six months before it takes effect. There are also measures for when a veteran contacts our department. We have just added 20 new case managers to respond more quickly to requests from our modern-day veterans.

We are significantly improving our department. We are reducing our processing times, improving our efficiency and decreasing red tape for our veterans and modern-day veterans. All of this is in the process of being implemented. We obviously had to set some priorities. Our priorities are the following: find ways to reorganize the fiscal or financial support we give these people with all of the necessary facilities for both physical and psychological problems. Now, other priorities will be determined in the future, since other changes still need to be made. But we are listening to their needs and the department is there to help them.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to commend the minister for bringing forward Bill C-55. Anything we can do to continue to help our veterans is something I know all members of Parliament greatly appreciate.

I have many veterans in my riding who come into my office to talk about some of the issues they are having in relation to getting the compensation. It is great to hear about the new compensation and some of the things the minister was talking about earlier, such as indexing, but it is the veterans who are being denied for whom we have to advocate.

Is there anything in this bill that will actually do something to help alleviate what veterans are having to go through right now in terms of being denied their claims when they legitimately have claims, and the processes that are there? Is this something the bill will address?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

moved that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important day, because from now on our veterans will receive a positive response from a government that wants to help them.

We believe it is important to protect our modern-day veterans, for example, those who are returning wounded from Afghanistan. We must ensure that they and their families do not have any financial difficulties if they have the misfortune of being wounded during a mission, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere in the world.

It is also an important time for me because just over a year ago, I was named Minister of Veterans Affairs and I had no idea of the magnitude of the task ahead of me. Why am I bringing this up? When I started to listen to our veterans, our modern-day veterans, and realized the difficulties they were experiencing, I understood that we would have to make some changes and do so quickly.

What actually happened? Why, all of a sudden, did our modern-day veterans start publicly talking about and sharing their suffering, pain and financial difficulties?

Here in the House, in 2005, parliamentarians voted unanimously to create the new veterans charter. We said it would be a living charter that would reflect today's reality. When our modern-day veterans, who often are 20, 25 or 30 years old, come back injured, they do not wish to go home and wait and see what will happen. They want to return to their communities and be active members of society. They want to go on with their lives. Naturally, if they have any disability whatsoever, we must help them return to civilian life.

The new veterans charter is entirely focused on rehabilitation. When veterans are in a rehabilitation program, we must ensure that, financially, we do the right thing so that they are able to support their families and get through this difficult stage.

We realized that the new veterans charter had some shortcomings. So, we listened to the interested parties. We went to Valcartier and other military bases. We met with members of the Royal Canadian Legion and representatives of the seven associations. We attended their national convention and consulted them in order to identify the priorities we should emphasize to support our modern-day veterans. Almost everyone agreed that we had to take action on three fronts.

This is the first. If soldiers return injured, from Afghanistan for example, and go into a rehabilitation program, from now on, for the duration of the rehabilitation—whether it takes two, three, five or eight years—they will receive a minimum of 75% of their salary, or at least $40,000.

The second change concerns those who cannot return to work, those whose injuries are too serious. Once Bill C-55 has been passed by the Senate, they will receive a minimum of $58,000 a year. That is the minimum that a member of our military will receive if he or she is unable to return to work.

In addition, when our veterans are injured, they will also receive what is known as a permanent monthly allowance. This allowance—which is similar to the measure in the old system—is paid to them each month for life. The amount can vary from $543 to $1,631 per month for life. Bill C-55 also provides for an additional $1,000, which means that someone who cannot return to work will receive at least $58,000 per year.

There will be a third change to the new veterans charter. Essentially, Bill C-55 has added a whole new chapter to the new veterans charter that was passed in the House in 2005.

The other constant criticism that we have been getting is about offering a lump sum payment as compensation for pain and suffering.

This lump sum payment could be as much as $285,000. After having done some research, we found that the problem was that many of the people who suffered from psychological wounds, mental health issues or PTSD, for example, spent their money inappropriately.

It is our responsibility to protect those who could encounter difficulties. Through Bill C-55, people will be able to receive a cash payment or spread the payment over a certain number of years, be it 10, 15 or 20 years, depending on what they choose. They can also choose a combination of the two, meaning that they could receive part of it in cash and part of it spread out over time.

That means that each individual will need to talk to his or her spouse or family to determine the best decision for their particular situation.

There are three interconnected elements. There is rehabilitation, for which they will receive $40,000 per year, in addition to the lump sum payment. If they cannot return to work, they will receive $58,000 per year, in addition to the lump sum payment. On top of that, of course, there is a permanent monthly allowance of between $543 and $1,631 per month for life.

We cannot put a price on the cost of losing one or more limbs. There is nothing we can do when that happens. However, we can financially support those who are injured, in order to ensure that they and their immediate families do not experience financial difficulties. That is why the changes we are proposing are a step in that direction. We must help our modern-day veterans who, unfortunately, may come back wounded from a mission.

Earlier, I said we consulted soldiers. I even went to Afghanistan to hear what our soldiers there had to say. I am pleased to share with the House what the president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Patricia Varga, said:

This bill, as a first step, makes great strides in improving the New Veterans Charter and encompasses many of the recommendations made by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

I would like to thank parliamentarians for their support. We know there are rumours of an election in the air, but we must vote on this bill before the upcoming budget. We hope to have as much co-operation as possible from the Senate to ensure that any of our soldiers who unfortunately face such a situation are properly protected. We must also ensure that these corrective measures come into force as soon as possible and avoid delaying everything for another year.

I would also like to tell the members of this House that I am the only minister who, in an economic recession, managed to get $2 billion from the government in order to correct the shortcomings in the new veterans charter. Who will benefit from that $2 billion? Our veterans, their families and modern-day veterans who have particular needs because of the work they do to protect our values and our country and to defend oppressed nations.

I truly believe that this is a step in the right direction. It is our responsibility to support our soldiers, the people who defend our values. Thus, I would like to thank all parliamentarians for supporting our desire to help those in need.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to your ruling yesterday, we are working right now as we speak to comply on that issue and we will be responding in short order.

We will continue debate today on the Bloc opposition motion that began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will call for third reading of Bill C-55, the new veterans charter bill. I appreciate that there has been support for the passage of that bill. It is important for Canada's veterans and I am pleased that we have been able to come together on that.

Following Bill C-55, if time permits, we would debate Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators; Bill S-7, the justice for victims of terrorism; Bill C-8, the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation bill, which is an important bill for my premier in Ontario and particularly for the people in both Alberta and British Columbia; Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada; Bill C-43, RCMP modernization; Bill C-52, investigating and preventing criminal electronic communications; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crime.

With respect to the business for next week, I will be, among other places, working hard in my constituency for the people of Ottawa West--Nepean.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, the report stage motions in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs be deemed adopted and the bill deemed concurred in at report stage; that the bill be allowed to be called for the third reading stage later today; and that, during the debate at the said stage, not more than one member from each recognized party may speak for not more than 10 minutes, after which the bill shall be deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill C-55. On the Order: Government Orders:)

March 8, 2011--Consideration at report stage of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2--Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Veterans

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, the charter that was unanimously adopted in the House in 2005 had some flaws. We are correcting them with Bill C-55, which will address questions that were raised today in a newspaper article.

Once this bill passes, the minimum that an individual participating in a rehabilitation program will receive will be $40,000 per year. For a veteran who cannot return to work, the minimum will be $58,000 per year. Furthermore, we will correct the problems with the lump sum payment, which will become optional.

Veterans Affairs

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Well, no. It has to pass and get into force. It has to have two years for us to find out if it's working.

Is it reaching the people we all want it to reach? Is it helping them? That's what Bill C-55 is all about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

This is specific to Bill C-55?

[Bernard Butler]

I guess my quick response to it would be, Mr. Stoffer, that the challenge that we had was not in the regulations around permanent impairment allowance, it was around what we are referring to as a “crosswalk”. It was the relationship between the old act and the new act. It had to do with limiting what disabilities could be considered for permanent impairment allowances that flow from the old act. And the way the legislation had been structured, it imposed an unintended barrier. What Bill C-55 will do is eliminate the barrier so that in fact disabilities for which entitlement is held under the old Pension Act can be included for purposes of entertaining applications for permanent impairment allowance. So that's where the key distinction is in Bill C-55.

[Bernard Butler]

This bill speaks to enhancements to the new Veterans Charter programming. It's targeted to the financial benefits payable under the bill. There's nothing in Bill C-55 that would speak to those issues you're raising, Monsieur, in this regard.

[Bernard Butler, Director General, Policy and Research, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act.

This fall the minister announced four changes to the new Veterans Charter programming. The first change was to improve the earnings loss benefit. As has been noted, this only requires a regulatory change, so it's not technically a part of the bill. That benefit, which replaces lost income for veterans undergoing rehabilitation, or who cannot be suitably and gainfully employed, will be increased to ensure a minimum annual pre-tax income of $40,000. So this is essentially an enhancement proposed for the earnings loss benefit.

The other three changes are a part of this bill, which amends the new Veterans Charter and the older Pension Act. These changes will, firstly, increase access to the permanent impairment allowance in the new Veterans Charter and the exceptional incapacity allowance under the old Pension Act to ensure that seriously disabled or injured veterans have access to either one of these benefits—so either access to the permanent impairment allowance under the new Veterans Charter or access to the exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act.

These changes will also provide a supplement of $1,000 per month to veterans in receipt of the permanent impairment allowance who cannot be suitably and gainfully employed.

Finally, it will provide the payment options for the disability award. The bill, as you are aware, will also be used to make minor housekeeping changes.

We listened with interest to debate at the second reading. I'd like first to take this opportunity to thank many of you for your words of support in the House. I would also like to address some of the concerns you have raised.

Many of you wondered why we did not increase the lump-sum payments. The concern stakeholders brought to us was a lack of a monthly income for certain veterans. Increasing the lump sum by itself would not fix that. However, increasing support provided through our financial support programs would. As such, we proposed increasing the earnings loss benefit and the permanent impairment allowance. The new Veterans Charter is a more complete approach to helping those injured in the line of duty and helping their families. It not only provides for lump-sum disability awards for pain and suffering, but it also provides monthly financial support when needed, such as earnings loss benefit, permanent impairment allowance, and the Canadian Forces income supplement, as well as case management, rehabilitation, and support for families.

We also found that many veterans—some 69% when surveyed—were satisfied with their lump-sum payments. When we surveyed veterans who had received a disability award, we found that 85% thought their lump sum was well used: 71% had invested at least a portion of that amount; some paid down a debt or put money in a savings account. That said, as some of you noted in debate, we also found that 31% weren't satisfied. As the minister has noted, 31% is enough to cause us to rethink the method of payment. So we are now, through this bill, proposing a choice of payment options.

You also asked why it took so long to bring forward changes to the charter. It's easy to forget that this is a new program with an innovative design and no experiential history upon which to build. Five years in the life of a program is but one cycle. In April we only completed, really, that first cycle. In spite of excellent program design and robust forecasts, the living charter is subject to what happens out in the real world, and we needed to collect that data and evidence to make full study prior to making changes.

In debate, Ms. Duncan noted some of the other changes the Legion would have liked to have seen. Regarding those specific to the legislation, I have addressed the issue of the disability awards, but the other items raised were different options for increasing the earnings loss benefit, providing it for life, and basing it on projected career earnings.

On this point, Mr. Chair, when designing these programs we take a whole-of-government approach and strive to keep our benefits similar to what the Department of National Defence and other similar federal programs provide. For example, National Defence provides 75% of salary in their income replacement programs. So consistency between what is received by those in service and those who exit service is important.

Mr. Stoffer, you had raised some specific concerns on the bill in debate that I'd be happy to speak to further in questions, if still required, but I did want to touch on the issue of the use of “may” as opposed to “shall” in our legislation. A convention of legislative drafting has evolved such that the word “may” is used and interpreted as “shall” in many instances. So in the new Veterans Charter and also in these amendments being brought forward in Bill C-55, when a veteran applies for and meets the eligibility criteria to qualify for a benefit, the word “may” is simply interpreted as the mandatory “shall”. The minister can do nothing other than grant the benefit and has no discretionary authority to refuse the application when the eligibility criteria have been met.

Mr. Chair, those are simply some observations we would make. We thank you for this time to address the committee, and we are here to assist you in your deliberation and certainly to answer any further questions you may have.

Merci beaucoup.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to say a few words today. I know that you have a very full agenda, so I will be brief.

I have followed with great interest the discussions in the House of Commons pertaining to Bill C-55, the act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act. As the Veterans Ombudsman, as a veteran myself with 37 years of military service, and as the proud father of a son who has served in the Canadian Forces and in Afghanistan, I am grateful to all members of Parliament for their commitment to do right by veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Forces.

The men and women who put on the uniform implicitly agree to risk their lives to defend our country and the values that we hold dear. In return, they have the right to expect from their government an integrated series of measures to support them throughout their careers and beyond. This country has a moral obligation to provide the very best support to them—particularly when they sustain career-ending, service-related injuries or illnesses—and to their families, who, in my opinion, do not get sufficient recognition for the sacrifices they make in support of their loved ones' military careers.

There is broad if not unanimous support among parliamentarians, veterans organizations, and others for the spirit of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, better known as the new Veterans Charter, in regard to its focus on wellness and transition to civilian life, compensation, and its more holistic approach to the needs of veterans and their families. The new Veterans Charter was seen when it came into force on April 1, 2006, and continues to be characterized as a significant improvement over the Pension Act.

Based on recent discussions on Bill C-55 in the House and elsewhere, I venture to say that this support for the spirit of the New Veterans Charter remains strong. However, there are also questions and concerns about the effectiveness of some of the programs and measures implemented under the charter and there is certainly room for improvement.

Over the past five years, there have been consultations, and sustained efforts by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and other advisory groups, veterans organizations and the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, to identify shortcomings and improvements.

The New Veterans Charter is complex. Because it was difficult to anticipate in advance its shortcomings or unintended consequences, the government made a commitment to continuously review its programs and services and to amend the legislation, if necessary, to address emerging needs or unanticipated consequences. In this way, the New Veterans Charter was intended to be a “living charter”, and I believe that the principle of a “living charter” is as important as “the spirit of the charter” itself. However, it has taken five years for this principle to become reality.

On November 17, 2010, the Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Veterans Affairs, introduced Bill C-55 in the House of Commons, which is now before this committee for review. I urge you to return it to the House for third reading as quickly as possible. Some may view Bill C-55 as modest in scope because it does not address all the shortcomings of the charter, but it is a very important step in setting the precedent to make the charter a truly “living” document, as envisioned by you and your fellow parliamentarians five years ago.

Bill C-55 may not be as comprehensive as some would like, but by passing Bill C-55 you will immediately affect the lives of the most seriously disabled veterans receiving disability benefits under both acts, those who could not receive the permanent impairment allowance or the exceptional incapacity allowance because of a technical flaw in the charter. This change, combined with the introduction of a monthly $1,000 supplement for permanently and severely injured veterans, represents significant improvement.

There is of course much debate about the disability award and whether or not the payment options provided under Bill C-55 go far enough to address the concerns around the lump-sum payment. They don't, but it is important to remember that Bill C-55 is the first opportunity to make changes to the new Veterans Charter; it is not, nor should it be, the last of your opportunities.

The discussion about improvements to the disability award and financial benefits is an extremely important one, and it must continue. The issues raised are complex and, in order to make informed decisions, cannot be reduced to a comparison of the disability award and the disability pension in isolation of the charter's other programs and benefits. It may be that the next series of amendments to the new Veterans Charter will address improvements to the charter's dual compensation approach. That would certainly be consistent with the principle of the charter as a living document.

Bill C-55 is a small but important step in making the charter a living document and bringing about changes to the legislation to better address the needs of Canada's veterans and their families. It should be considered as the beginning of the promised ongoing renewal process that is needed to afford veterans the care they deserve. Other steps must follow, and soon. Waiting another five years to bring about further improvements to the new Veterans Charter would be unacceptable.

Thank you.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Gentlemen, first of all, thank you very much.

Sir, it's a real pleasure to see the liberation medals from the Netherlands on you. Thank you both for your service.

On the $40,000 thing that we've been discussing with my other colleagues, I'm not sure if you're aware, but you don't need Bill C-55 to move the $40,000 amount. You don't need a legislative amendment to do that. You just need a regulatory amendment to do that. So it could be $40,000, it could be $80,000, it could be $100,000, but you don't need Bill C-55 to move that amount. So that's problem number one. And it's unfortunate that Veterans Affairs has indicated that for the $40,000, Bill C-55 has to pass, because they're two different things altogether.

The biggest problem that I have, although the bill is a small step in the right direction, is that the government should have taken a great big leap to assist, because the reality is, according to the Library of Parliament, only 20 severely injured veterans have received the permanent impaired allowance since 2006. Only 20. This bill will probably help a few hundred more, but you and I both know that there are thousands upon thousands of veterans and their families who require assistance in a variety of ways right now. So although this is a small step forward, it is a tiny step.

So I just want to ask you this question. You deal with government all the time and Department of Veterans Affairs officials. Why were they so timid in this legislation, when they could have taken a big leap forward? With all the advice they got from our committee, from veterans groups, from the Gerontological Advisory Council, their own advisory board, of all the recommendations to move the issue of veterans care forward, why do you think they were so timid, in my own opinion, and moved the bar ever so slowly forward?

[Elphège Renaud]

Do you think I did not read Bill C-55? Are you saying I said something else? It is $1,609. In order for a veteran to be entitled to that money, he has to be 100% disabled, in other words, without an arm or a leg. A veteran who is 50% disabled will get only half of that amount. And that is $800, is it not? In order to receive the $1,000, you have to be entitled to receive the $1,609. So you would get a monthly allowance of $1,609 in addition to an extra $1,000 for life. That sounds pretty good. But to be entitled to that $1,000 a month for the rest of your life, you have to be receiving the $1,609. You have to be 100% disabled. How many soldiers returning from Afghanistan will be 100% disabled and therefore entitled to receive that $1,609?

What's more, you have to meet other conditions as well to get that $1,000. I know because I applied for it. You must be unable to walk, be in a wheelchair or be unable to attend to your own affairs, such as getting dressed. That is my situation. You have not seen me without my clothes on, it is not a pretty sight. And I was not even eligible to access the entire amount, even though I should be. I am actually much more disabled than I appear. If I did not have my clothes on, it would probably frighten you to see everything I have to wear underneath.

It sounds great when the government makes this kind of announcement. They talk about $1,609 and $1,000 for life. People who read about that in La Presse or see it on TV will think that the government is supporting veterans. A veteran who spent 33 years in the Canadian Forces—and who happens to be my cousin—told me today he thought the $40,000 was for every veteran. That is not the case. It is an additional benefit for those who are eligible and will mean more money for them. I have always said that any extra money a veteran is given would be welcome, but the government must not go around claiming it is handing over enormous sums, either. All the better for those who will be able to access that money. They will have the security that the $1,609 and $1,000 for life will provide, but it is not quite as easy as picking up a cheque. This room could fit all the veterans who will be eligible to receive that money. I know one thing, I have been getting a pension for 58 years.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here today. As always, thank you for your contribution to our great country and for defending all of us in the past.

My question will go to either one of the gentlemen who wants to answer. Have you had a chance to review the bill we're referring to today, Bill C-55?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm sorry for the delay to our witnesses.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the Standing Committees on Veterans Affairs. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, March 4, 2011, we are dealing with Bill C-55, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act.

We're going to extend the meeting a little. We have allowed our witnesses here today each a five-minute statement and then we'll have one five-minute question for each party, because there is half an hour allowed for this part.

From the Association du Royal 22e Régiment, we have Elphège Renaud, president, and Claude Sylvestre, first vice-president. Welcome, gentlemen.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March 2, Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, is deemed read a second time and referred to a committee.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the member's question, I would like to, on behalf of the government, add my voice to the voices of the member for Toronto Centre and the member for Winnipeg Centre who spoke about the passing of a distinguished member of the parliamentary press gallery, Jim Travers of The Toronto Star. He was a long-time member of the parliamentary press gallery and a former editor of the Ottawa Citizen. Jim would have been just 63 years old next month. His passing in the hospital was completely shocking and unexpected.

Jim was a top national journalist and a columnist who never was afraid to make his views known on the printed page and on the airwaves as a frequent guest on panel shows and talk radio. He was a passionate Canadian. He loved this country and he was incredibly committed to his craft. Canada has certainly lost a legend.

On behalf of all of us in this place, I offer our sincere condolences to Jim's wife Joan, his sons Patrick and Ben, and to the rest of his family and friends, and his colleagues especially from The Toronto Star who, I know, are deeply saddened by this loss, and, indeed, all of his colleagues in the parliamentary press gallery at this very difficult time. The thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with Jim's family and many friends.

In terms of parliamentary business for the coming week, today we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion. I thank my NDP counterpart, the member for Vancouver East, after our difference of opinion. We have worked to make Parliament work and we have come to an agreement that has been satisfactory to both sides. I also thank my opposition colleagues from Ottawa South and Joliette for their assistance and agreement in this matter.

Tomorrow, we will resume and hope to complete debate on Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter that our colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has introduced. Following Bill C-55, we will move to call Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

Next week, we will continue with the business on Friday and, in addition, we will call Bill C-20, the action plan for the National Capital Commission; Bill C-54, the child sexual offences; Bill C-8, the Canada–Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation; Bill C-46, the Canada–Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada, brought forward by the Minister for Small Business; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crimes, which is an important bill sponsored by our colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

My friend from Ottawa South and the member for Vancouver East mentioned a solicitation for financial funds on parliamentary letterhead.

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, I think it would be wise for you to place this issue before the Board of Internal Economy. There have been several complaints about opposition members soliciting campaign funds on government websites and perhaps the board could discuss that at the same time.

With respect to Bill S-10 and Bill C-49, we continue to make our case to Canadians and are working hard to convince the Liberal Party of the wrong decision it has made on these important piece of legislation. We will call for further debate in due course.

Veterans

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from Lévis—Bellechasse for his excellent work and his concern for veterans.

Our government is listening to the regions of Quebec and to veterans. We introduced Bill C-55 in the House, and it will serve as the enhanced new veterans charter and will help our modern-day veterans, who may come back wounded from Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the Bloc is still not co-operating as we would like, but we still hope to pass this bill before the upcoming budget.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on Bill C-55.

From the outset, I want to point out that I support Bill C-55, as the son of a World War II veteran who served at D-Day and went through the battle of the Falaise Gap and Caen. My father came home with shrapnel in his legs and that was there until the day he died. He lost hearing in one ear. I know what it is like to live with a veteran who had to seek services from Veterans Affairs. I know what it is like for someone who, through no fault of his own, did not come back the same person as when he left for the war. Yet my father would say every day that he would do it again.

At the end of World War II, no country treated their veterans better than Canada, bar none.

As the vice-chair of the national defence committee and the vice-chair of the Afghan committee, I have had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan on three occasions and meet with our soldiers in the field. I have had the opportunity to meet with veterans here. As a member of the Royal Canadian Legion in Richmond Hill, Branch 375, I have talked to veterans. All they want and deserve are services that will respond effectively to their needs.

When a veteran, in his eighties, needs a new pair of eyeglasses and it takes months to get a response, that is unacceptable. When a veteran needs a new hearing aid and it takes months, that is unacceptable.

Whether these amendments are made or not, the charter still does not deal with the issue of customer service. We need to respond more effectively and efficiently to the needs of veterans. As more and more people come home from Afghanistan, we will have a larger number of veterans. The defence committee last year did a post traumatic stress disorder study. We found that there was a discrepancy in the country between east and west in terms of the services available for veterans.

I wrote the Minister of Veterans Affairs on October 25 about the $4,100 currently paid for burial. That is about 70% less than a normal burial in our country and one-third of what it would be if one was killed in action in Afghanistan. That is unacceptable. Some families do not have the money to cover full burial costs and the government only provides $4,100. I hope the minister will respond effectively on that issue.

There is no question that the bill before the House tries to address some of the issues. We know that the Royal Canadian Legion, for example, is supportive of these changes. Our party has no intention of holding up the bill. We want to ensure we move forward as fast as possible.

The charter was passed in 2005, and this is a living document. It is too bad that it has taken four years to come to this point. We need to act quickly to deal with some of the issues that are before the House and get this done.

One of the issues the government did not deal with effectively was on the lump-sum payment. That is surprising, given the minister's departmental study found that 31% of veterans were unhappy with the lump-sum payment. Although the minister said that he would improve the system, under this legislation, all the minister has really done is divide up the payment differently. Veterans have not been asking for that. That is not what that study showed.

Clearly dealing with the issue of partial payments over a number of years for recipients or a single lump-sum payment still does not address the issue that many veterans have articulated. That should have been addressed in the legislation. Again, the minister has had four years and nothing has really been done to address it.

In fact, if we look at Australia, the Australian veterans receive an average of $329,000, whereas the British receive up to $1 million. We need to address this kind of issue for our veterans.

Pieces of the legislation address the concerns of a number of people and a number of associations, such as the proposed legislation dealing with $58,000 per year for seriously wounded or ill veterans, an improvement, and for those too injured to return to the workforce, a minimum of $40,000 per year no matter what the salary was when serving in the Canadian Forces for those receiving the monthly earnings loss benefit. Again, that is an important change.

These changes are necessary but, again, it is the ability of veterans to access these changes. It is the ability of veterans to get the services they need in a prompt and efficient manner.

A larger disability award is needed in line with what is provided in Australia, which is also provided to disabled civilian veterans who also receive assistance. Again, these are things we could do. I mentioned burial costs, again things we could address.

In the House we always say how important veterans are, yet when it comes to action, we have waited four years for changes, which, again, particularly because of pressure from all opposition parties, now almost at the eleventh we get this.

The new veterans charter advisory group and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs have indicated, insistently, the need for changes and for those changes to happen quickly. Again, it is disappointing that we have waited.

On the issue of homeless veterans, it is absolutely shocking in our country that we have veterans who are homeless, who are on the streets, who have come back to a lack of support. Again, it is a national disgrace that we have homeless veterans.

Only now are the media, members of Parliament and others actually looking at this, not only as a social issue but also as a moral issue. We have a responsibility to deal with those individuals. Again, I find it very sad that we have what I call homeless heroes on the street who have no ability to deal effectively with finding work, health benefits, et cetera. We have to deal with that.

It is encouraging that many national veterans' organizations are in support of this. It is encouraging to note we are moving forward with the legislation. Some people are talking about an election. I guess that will up to the government. It only governs by the will of Parliament and hopefully maintains the confidence of Parliament. If the government is really serious, hopefully we will be able to address these issues, both now and in the upcoming budget, which the Minister of Finance has announced will be presented on March 22.

It is important that we not only respond in this way, but also that we provide more people in the field, in terms of caseworkers who deal with our veterans. We are going to see a significant increase in the numbers of veterans coming home, because of Afghanistan, and that is going to have an impact.

The number of psychiatrists and psychologists in the Canadian Forces is actually low. In fact, the services are much lower and much less effective in eastern Canada because many of those bases are further away from some of the major cities versus those in western Canada. We need to address that problem.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is not something that is always discovered on a veteran's return home, or three months later or two years later; it can be up to five years later. Again, are we ready to respond to that?

From our studies at the defence committee, the answer is clearly no. We are not ready to respond to that. On that point, I plead to the government to put the resources in to ensure we can attract the professionals to help in that regard and to help the families of those individuals.

About 10 years we did a quality of life study at the defence committee. It really responded to many of the key issues on wages, housing conditions and benefits for people. It is time we started another review and respond in terms of updating the quality of life. We ask people to go overseas and put their lives on the line, while their families are here. Do the families have the right support while those people are away? Do those people have the right support when they come home?

The answer is we do not. We have fallen a long way since the end of the Second World War when we provided the best benefits to veterans coming home after that war.

I was part of a Parliament that addressed these issues and addressed them effectively for future generations. Although we talk a lot about our responsibility to veterans, I would hope that we really show it to them, not only financially but in the other ways that I have pointed out.

I trust we can move this legislation along very quickly. Although some people have reservations, the reality is not only do we have to act at least on those changes that have been made, but we have to keep pushing on the others as well. If we do not, it will be another four years before we see any action.

Our party has pledged to do that. We are party that brought in the charter. We are the party that said it was a living document. It is too bad that it sat on the shelf for four years. Ultimately we are all collectively responsible for ensuring our veterans have the best.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague underscores what I am most concerned about, that there will only be five centres available for veterans if they need help and support. His point about the problems caused by services being moved to a distant area also underscores the situation we are facing.

Many of the veterans who come to talk to me about their situation are extremely fragile. They have depended on the military for most of their adult lives in their decision-making and they find it very difficult when things get complicated or complex. Many of their needs are significant. As we know, the pay received by the average Canadian Forces person is not significant, and he or she cannot wait months and months for a buyback or some kind of financial support. We can do far better. We promised this.

When I made my remarks, I talked about the covenant between our service personnel and RCMP and this country. We ask them to do terrifying and important things for their country. They have stood and done those things, and we owe them the respect and dignity due by making sure that whatever they need will be provided. Unfortunately, Bill C-55 does not do that, at least not in its present state, and I am hoping that we can amend it to make it stronger and make it work because we are far past the point where we can tolerate any more wasted time.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his question. I do, however, have to go back to Bill C-55.

I am very disappointed it is so very weak. Clause after clause indicates that the minister “may” provide support, not “shall” but “may”. To me, this equivocation means that veterans are once again going to be put at risk.

The minister is quite right in terms of the living document that appeared in this House four years ago. Unfortunately, I feel that it took far too long for the needed changes to even be proposed.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the announcement made a couple of weeks ago by the Minister of National Defence, in which he talked about five places where veterans could go in order to have the services and support they need. While it is an important step in the right direction, I would suggest that only five centres spread across this huge country are not enough.

A great many of the veterans that I come in contact with are unsure and need support, and they could never manage to get to one of these centres. I am pleased to see that the centres have been brought forward. Establishing them was one of the NDP suggestions that we fought very hard for for a very long time.

Again, however, veterans need more.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate concerning the courageous men and women who serve and have served in the military.

When our country was in danger during World War I, World War II and Korea, or when our country called upon them to be peacekeepers in places far from home, like Somalia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Cypress, East Timor, Suez and now in Afghanistan, when they were sent to serve in NATO, or when our country asked them to help communities jeopardized by floods, earthquakes, ice storms, forest fires, our courageous men and women did not hesitate. They did what they were asked to do. They did their duty in World War I, World War II, Korea and a multitude of deployments since.

In the course of that duty our country made a covenant with them. Canada made promises that the men and women of the armed forces would not be forgotten. Our governments made and continue to make promises assuring these men and women that they would be remembered and honoured by a grateful nation. That is a wonderful sentiment.

I know without a shadow of a doubt that the people of Canada are grateful and that they truly remember and honour our servicemen and women in the Canadian Forces and the RCMP. I see it every day from my constituents in London—Fanshawe.

Sadly however, what has become painfully obvious is that the government neither honours our veterans, peacekeepers and those currently serving, nor is it willing to unconditionally provide the services, pensions, programs and special care to which these veterans, the members of the armed forces and their families are entitled.

I am extremely disappointed that after four years the government was unable to incorporate more substantial changes to the veterans charter. The changes proposed in Bill C-55 are merely cosmetic and do not go far enough.

Bill C-55 states that the minister may provide career transition services; may provide rehabilitation services and vocational assistance to veterans' survivors; may on application pay a permanent allowance to a veteran. “May” is not good enough. The word must be “shall”.

Veterans have waited long enough. The Government of Canada has an obligation to ensure that after veterans have put their lives on the line they are treated with dignity, honour and respect.

Sadly, Bill C-55 is a lost opportunity. The act itself is full of equivocations. We have report after report that show the total inadequacies of an overly complex and ineffective Veterans Affairs program.

The government ignored the vast majority of recommendations regarding changes to the veterans charter, the lion's share of which came from the Gerontological Advisory Council as well as the former veterans ombudsman and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, all of whom produced significant studies on the veterans charter.

I would like to highlight some of the problems that this new legislation ignores.

I am sure members know about the pension clawbacks that retired members of the Canadian Forces face when they reach age 65. In 1966, when the CPP was introduced, it was integrated with the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act. Members of the Canadian Forces were unaware that there would consequently be reductions to their pensions.

During their working years, CF members face health hazards, long periods of time away from family and frequent moves. The negative impact of these stresses are often felt most acutely in later life. Cancelling the clawback is the best way to acknowledge the commitment and service of veterans. The government has however not been receptive to this imperative.

When a veteran dies, his or her spouse is allowed only 50% of the pension of the deceased. Many of these spouses face real hardship and as a result, legions across the country have tried to make up for what the government takes away. Legion sponsored funds attempt to support widows and widowers and their families as well as possible. The legion has fundraisers with raffles and poppy sales, dinners and hall rentals, but the legion too is falling on hard times. Its members are aging. Its numbers are in decline and it is having difficulty making ends meet.

Legions have recommended that survivor pensions be two-thirds of the original pension. That would be a tremendous help to spouses, many of whom are elderly women.

Unfortunately, the government is not interested in such a change. Even worse, if a veteran marries after age 60, the widow or widower is entitled to nothing. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act calls them gold diggers and refuses to recognize any entitlement, refusing to recognize the importance of the love and comfort they gave to their partners. It is a sign of disrespect.

Nowhere is such disrespect more evident than in the situation faced by many ex-forces members if injuries sustained during service do not fully manifest themselves until after retirement.

Just this fall I had an extended conversation with a master sergeant. While serving overseas, he sustained injuries from a significant fall in a training exercise. He was hospitalized with a spinal fracture, and after he recovered he returned to active duty. Now some 30 years later, he suffers from neck pain caused by the fracture. He survives on expensive medications not covered by his benefits. When he asked Veterans Affairs for help, he was denied. The reason given was that he had not been injured in combat. In other words, despite medical records showing injuries from a serious accident during his service career, his veracity and the value of his service were called into question and he was refused benefits.

Bill C-55 does not provide a remedy for this injustice. The corporate insurance mentality of those administering the program within Veterans Affairs hurts those who have served their country, and hurts their families too. That mentality has to go.

Did members know there is a homeless shelter for military veterans and a food bank in Calgary set up specifically for veterans?

Last April, the Prime Minister visited that food bank, had a media photo op and talked about how wonderful it was that the community was helping veterans. Well, it was, except that a research study conducted by London based researchers, Susan Ray and Cheryl Forchuk, shows that in southwestern Ontario alone there are dozens of homeless veterans. I wonder if it occurred to the Prime Minister that it is an outrage that the people we pledged to honour and remember are homeless and forced to survive by going to a food bank.

Even with Bill C-55, veterans and retired CF personnel still face reduced pension, may have pension benefits denied and are not entitled to help for non-service-related injuries. The experience of homelessness and hunger among veterans is a common occurrence.

It certainly does not seem like a grateful government or a responsible Department of Veterans Affairs.

Finally, I want to talk about the situation at Parkwood Hospital in my riding. Parkwood was at one time the regional veterans hospital. I can remember visiting my uncles, both veterans of World War II, at Parkwood whenever they were hospitalized. Parkwood was also a long-term care facility for veterans whose injuries were so serious they would never live independently or with their families again.

Back in 1979, Parkwood and veterans hospitals across the country were turned over to the provinces and Veterans Affairs contracted for beds and care for the World War I, World War II and Korean War vets. The agreement entered into with the province contained no provisions for modern day veterans or the estimated 200,000 peacekeepers who have served on missions since Korea. Many of these retired or soon to be retired Canadian Forces members feel they have been overlooked by their country. While there are private care homes available to them, many feel they should receive the same level of care and have the same access to hospitals like Parkwood that previous generations had. Unfortunately, the beds at veterans hospitals will close as World War II and Korean War veterans pass away. Once these beds are gone, they will not re-open.

The Government of Canada should change the mandate of veterans hospitals and allow those coming back from Afghanistan and the aging post-Korean service personnel to have access to federally supported beds. I say this because the care of veterans is a federal responsibility, a part of the covenant that I talked about at the beginning of my remarks.

These veterans have earned their pensions, their benefits, their services and programs and they have earned the right to expect their government to fulfill all of the promises made. It is time for the government to go back to the drawing board. Bill C-55 does not fix the problems with the veterans charter. The bill needs extensive amendments.

Our veterans deserve much better than what they are receiving. Let us honour them with the dignity and respect they deserve.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my 10 minutes to this very important debate today on Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act. It is a very long title for an important bill.

Before I continue, I want to take moment and pay special tribute to the thousands of current and former military service people, their families, and most especially to all those who have paid the ultimate price for the freedoms that we all enjoy today.

In the words of my colleague from Etobicoke North, the life experiences of our veterans:

--affect me and all Canadians deeply, and remind us that we owe them a debt of gratitude we can never repay. Instead of trying to repay our obligation, we let them down on so many issues. For example, too many injured veterans go without the care they need. Too many veterans do not receive the support they have earned. Too many veterans have nowhere safe to sleep at night.

This must change and we have the power to change it. Bill C-55 is a step in the right direction.

As the vice-chair of the veterans committee and as an elected member, whenever I am called upon to speak or to vote on these matters, I remember the spirit that inspired these brave men and women to serve our country, and I try to conduct myself in accordance with their example.

As someone who grew up on Canada's east coast, I have seen firsthand that spirit, how it lived in the people of our communities and what it felt like each time a ship put out to sea with a crew of our finest young men and women.

I have also witnessed firsthand the challenges that are too often faced by that same crew upon their return home from the horrors of combat. The need for effective rehabilitation, services, and compensation are at the heart of why we are here today and, as we deliberate, I would certainly hope that all members of this House would remember that basic guiding ideal.

Let us right these past wrongs. Let us make Bill C-55 serve the people who need it the most.

We have all heard stories of elderly veterans who can no longer make ends meet. They are forced to give up their possessions, their independence and, ironically enough, they are forced to relinquish their personal freedom, all because they cannot access the appropriate services and supports they might need to truly return home.

We have all heard the terrible stories of young men and women battling marital breakdown, financial ruin, and even criminal implications prompted by battle-induced PTSD. What we do not often admit is that these things are actually avoidable.

National media headlines like “Veterans wanted dead, not alive, ombudsman charges” and “Canada's treatment of war veterans 'a national embarrassment'” tell a story of tragic failure on the part of the government.

Just this past July, the Toronto Star ran the story of John Sheardown. According to the article, Mr. Sheardown is an 85-year-old former bomber pilot. He is suffering from Alzheimer's and recovering from a broken hip.

Despite his distinguished service to Canada, Mr. Sheardon was left to languish in hospital, facing a wait of up to 18 months for a bed in a veterans long-term home in Ottawa. Now I ask, how is that okay? How is this appropriate treatment for a Canadian hero?

Our veterans deserve our help. They heroically stood for Canada and for Canadians, and now we need to stand with them, no exceptions.

What has brought us to this point? How is it that even after the implementation of the new veterans charter in 2006, we still have veterans falling through the cracks?

The Minister of Veterans Affairs tabled Bill C-55, Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act on November 17. The legislation consolidated several smaller announcements the minister made the previous fall, and it would make further minor changes to the new veterans charter, as called for by several veterans organizations including the Royal Canadian Legion.

Bill C-55 also proposes to introduce changes to the administration of the lump sum disability award, something we have heard a lot about at the committee level. Specifically, Bill C-55 would amend parts 1 to 3 of the new veterans charter, as well part IV of the Pension Act.

Despite all of this, on behalf of the veterans and in concert with many of my colleagues on this side of the House, I must ask why the government waited four years to propose any change to the new veterans charter.

Conservatives have suggested that the veterans charter is a living document or, as they call it, a work in progress that would be continually adapted to meet the changing needs of veterans, but I see very little evidence of this. How can they say this with a straight face when so many of our veterans have been left out of the government's plan?

Some on the other side of the House might say that I am being unfair with my criticism and so, as an example, I would ask why Veterans Affairs Canada did not live up to its 2006 commitment to review lump sum awards versus disability pension within two years. It would have saved an enormous amount of anguish for an awful lot of people if that had already been done, as was required in the original charter. I do not think it is an unfair question. It is a fair one that deserves an answer.

The former veterans ombudsman explained to the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs that such examples of lack of timely action undermine the sincerity of the chorus of loyalty to our veterans. With this in mind, Liberals have no intention of holding up this bill. We will work in the best interests of veterans and Canadian Forces members and, most importantly, to ensure that this bill rightfully addresses their needs.

However, to do this effectively, we are going to have to move fast. Canada, unfortunately, is now facing the possibility of an election. Again, when will the government get serious about the passage of Bill C-55 and its extra support for veterans? It will not happen if there is another election.

There is no real doubt that change is needed. A study by the minister's own department found that 31% of veterans are unhappy with what they are currently receiving. Yet, rather than making the necessary changes immediately, the government opted for a lesser approach. It simply divided the payment up differently.

Rather than fix the underlying problem, the government is proposing to permit the recipient to collect a partial lump sum and partial annual payments over any number of years or as a single lump payment. This is nothing more than bean counting and does very little to actually address the challenges already being identified by Canada's veterans.

I must point out that the Royal Canadian Legion would still like the department to address the overall amount of the lump sum payment, which currently stands at $276,000. In Canada, disabled workers receive on average $329,000. In Australia, service members receive about $325,000 and service members from the U.K. receive almost $1 million.

On a personal note, I would agree with the legion when it suggests that Canadian veterans have every right to expect at least what their civilian counterparts might expect to receive. I would even go one step further. Perhaps Canadian veterans should expect even more given what they have done for us.

This is but one example of what is lacking with the government. Whether we are talking about the government's lack of action on the agent orange file, the atomic veterans' concerns or the matter of PTSD most recently raised by the committee, the government has consistently failed to take a proactive approach to supporting veterans.

As I have also raised, the government has turned a blind eye to the changing demographics associated with our veterans. Canada's first contingents of regular Canadian troops arrived in Afghanistan in January 2002. Since then, thousands of our young men and women have served in what has been some of the most horrific and trying battle conditions seen in years.

In addition to the actual loss of life, Canada's newest returning heroes are facing a host of medical and psychological challenges: PTSD, heightened rates of suicide, marital breakdown, homelessness and even, according to some studies, higher rates of diseases such as ALS.

This is the new reality faced by Canadian veterans and as the former critic for Veterans Affairs, as the vice-chair of the veterans committee today and as an MP who thinks our war heroes deserve better, I am here to say that I think the government is simply not doing enough. The government has been quick to deploy and keen to arm, but very slow and lethargic to prepare for the human consequences of its actions and policies.

Liberals will be supporting Bill C-55. We look forward to it going to committee, an opportunity to try to improve a bill that does some things but clearly does not do enough.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we can speak of a culture of protecting veterans, particularly in Europe. Some members will probably say that Europeans have seen so much war that they have had time to develop that kind of culture.

I would like to ask my colleague if she thinks that it would be good if the committee, during discussions about Bill C-55, drew on that culture in general. I am not only talking about physical things or regulations or the way in which laws are created. Veterans are cared for differently in Europe than they are here.

We could basically say that this type of culture does not exist here. Here there are people who want to forget them. I would like to hear her thoughts about proposing that to the committee.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see a member of the Bloc stand in support of Canada and its military and recognize the great work it does to ensure our safety.

I share the concerns that the member has in regard to how we deal with some of the lump sum payments and other things that are offered and which are clearly presenting problems. Bill C-55 puts forward some solutions and some modifications to the existing plan.

What else would the member like to see? She talked a lot about the concern around the lump sum payment in particular. What would the member's advice be as to what she would like to see done differently?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of a World War II veteran, I have a personal interest in speaking today to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act. This bill also amends the new veterans charter introduced in November by the Conservative Minister of Veterans Affairs. I was very active on this issue given that I am an MP from Quebec City and the Valcartier military base is in that region.

I will briefly outline the measures proposed in Bill C-55. The lump sum payment remains the same, as my colleague was saying earlier, but injured soldiers could now spread out the payment or opt for a single payment. They will have the choice between a single payment, a monthly payment or a combination of the two. Nonetheless, the maximum amount of the lump sum is not being increased, and that does not really meet the expectations of the veterans who appeared before the committee. Income for veterans who can no longer work has been set at $40,000 before taxes, and monthly benefits can range between $536 and $1,609. As my colleague was saying earlier, $40,000 is not very much, and no consideration is given to the salary the individual was earning before being injured or, in many cases, maimed.

Although the minister decided not to increase the amount of the lump sum payment given to veterans who are seriously injured during combat, the Bloc Québécois agrees that the bill should be studied in more depth in committee. We have asked that the families of witnesses and veterans themselves testify to provide us with their insight on all of the new measures tabled by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Many stakeholders, in particular the Royal Canadian Legion, do not believe that this bill goes far enough. Given the magnitude of the mission in Afghanistan—it is a very high-risk situation in which an increasingly large number of people are being injured—the federal government could have increased its investment. We hope that veterans will be able to come and share their opinions on this bill and testify about their situation.

With regard to the desire of many stakeholders that compensation for injured soldiers be given in the form of a lifetime monthly pension, on October 5, I tabled in the House of Commons a petition signed by 6,000 people asking the federal government to bring back the lump sum payment. That is why I said that I was very interested in this issue and that I had worked on this file. That being said, the impact of the new measures will have to be determined.

I also decided to take some concrete action after meeting with Francine Matteau, a constituent of mine from Quebec City. Her son injured both of his legs in 2007 when he was serving in Afghanistan. He had to have nine surgeries. He has constant pain in his ankles, and one leg is shorter than the other. His ankles are practically immobile. He has lost control, mobility and strength in both of his legs. He has difficulties holding a full-time job and no longer meets the army's requirements. I know that he dreamed of a career outside the military when he returned from Afghanistan.

If he had been wounded before the adoption of the new charter, he would have received $5,400 per month, instead of a lump sum payment of $100,000. Yes, $100,000 is a lot of money, but when you spread that out, for someone who is 20, 21 or 22, who is returning seriously wounded and can no longer work, that is definitely not enough. The family must pick up the slack, and he becomes dependent.

I have other similar examples.

Elphège Renaud, the president of the Association des anciens combattants du Royal 22e Régiment de Valcartier, met 19 soldiers who were severely disabled. Most of them were penniless despite having received compensation.

The former veterans ombudsman, Mr. Stogran, has also spoken out about this situation. He has called for the reinstatement of the monthly pension to prevent injured soldiers and their families from falling below the poverty line.

Moving to a lump sum payment means that Canada refuses to recognize as full veterans the soldiers who return from Afghanistan with injuries. This was reported in La Presse on September 13, 2010. Again according to Mr. Stogran, the adoption of the new veterans charter created two classes of veterans: those who served in the second world war and in the Korean War, and all the rest. What is also left unsaid is that those who were injured in World War II had to prove that their injuries were actually related to the battles that had taken place.

According to Mr. Stogran, the government is clearly failing to fulfill its obligations towards an entire generation of veterans, and the enhanced new veterans charter makes only one thing possible: to save money at the expense of this new generation.

On August 30, an independent study ordered by the veterans ombudsman and submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs was made public. It compares the one-time lump sum payment to the guaranteed lifetime pension. It concludes that soldiers injured in combat, veterans and the families of severely disabled members are the losers with the implementation of the enhanced new veterans charter.

As was said earlier, to be entitled to fair compensation you must be severely disabled, and the compensation is not enough given that a severely disabled person requires more individualized health services. For that reason we are asking if it would be possible, in committee, to amend the bill so that it better meets the expectations of those injured in combat.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs always replies that changes were made to the charter on September 19 in order to improve assistance for veterans. This afternoon, I am telling him that it is not enough. The minister should be much more sensitive to what these young veterans really go through when they return home. They often have fairly serious psychological issues. The minister himself admitted, at a press conference, that the new measures he was announcing would not result in a return to a monthly pension rather than a lump sum payment.

This bill no longer imposes a lump sum payment, which is a step in the right direction. As for the single payment option for a lump sum payment, as I said earlier, that is an in-between solution that will not ensure greater stability or the well-being of our younger veterans in the long term, compared to what a lifetime monthly pension could do.

We can draw a parallel with another issue: water contamination in Shannon. A little earlier, an NDP member raised the whole issue of agent orange and the need for a much more in-depth study. Some soldiers were contaminated by chemicals and, in some cases, even developed cancer. I would like to remind the House about the whole issue of water contamination in Shannon. For years, people drank contaminated water from the groundwater that had been contaminated by National Defence. Many veterans, soldiers and civilians lived in this area neighbouring Valcartier. They were contaminated and had a higher than average rate of cancer. A class action lawsuit has been launched against the Department of National Defence and SNC-Lavalin. The residents needed a great deal of money in order to be heard, since neither government—the Liberals, at the time, and now the Conservatives—acted responsibly.

Acting responsibly would have meant, for example, doing what was done in the United States. They tried tracking down all of the soldiers who worked at Camp Lejeune and drank the water. The same thing happened there. The army had contaminated the groundwater and the people, including young cadets, had drunk the contaminated water.

Thus, we would have liked the federal government to do more to show that it cares. They always talk about how proud they are of our soldiers who go and defend democracy overseas on behalf of the Canadian nation. However, it is shameful and appalling to see how the government takes care of these soldiers when they come back.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government needs to stop saying that the Bloc Québécois does not support veterans. I have a message for the Conservatives: I am the daughter of a veteran. My father fought in England, as did my uncle and aunt. My father came back with tuberculosis; my uncle, with a leg missing; and my aunt, with only half of her head. It is very important to me that Bill C-55 about veterans be well thought out and well crafted. My father had tuberculosis and received a monthly pension to help him move past the depression, the ordeal and the horror he had gone through in the war.

Why does the government still insist on not providing a monthly pension to those returning from war, those who defend democracy? These are our parents, our brothers, our sisters. I would like to understand why the government is being so stubborn about the monthly disability pension. Why does my colleague think?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member from Québec.

I rise today to debate Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act. I would first like to inform the House that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle but, as you will see, there is room for improvement.

I hope that this bill will make people aware of the new concept of veterans. Veterans now include those known as modern-day veterans, those returning from the Afghanistan mission who are between 20 and 40 years old. Men and women who embarked on a mission to liberate the Afghan people from the Taliban are returning with physical injuries and are often severely affected psychologically by what they have seen.

Since the beginning of this mission in 2002, 154 Canadian soldiers have lost their lives. Statistics provided by the Department of National Defence indicate that a total of 1,580 Canadian soldiers had been injured or killed in Afghanistan as of 2008. In 2009, 505 soldiers were injured, on top of the 1,075 injured as of 2008.

Furthermore, as a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I saw with my own eyes veterans or their family members who told us about their daily nightmares, what is called post-traumatic stress disorder. These people often have to take very strong medication and undergo rigorous medical follow-up to live and reintegrate into our society.

I wanted to take a few minutes to show you that I am informed about and aware of this type of situation. It should also be noted that the Department of National Defence refuses to disclose the nature and seriousness of injuries. We will have to wait until the end of the current year to obtain the statistics for 2010. The current mission will be over, but other members of the military who have training functions will continue to face the dangers arising from their presence in that country. I am giving the example of the Afghanistan mission as a reminder that the mission of our Canadian military has changed greatly over the past decade.

I would like to point out that we have always been particularly concerned about the well-being of our veterans. As parliamentarians, we may seriously disagree on political decisions or military missions that the public finds controversial. But what is most important is that our veterans should not pay the political price of this debate. They sacrificed much of their safety, their well-being and their health. It goes without saying that injured and disabled veterans deserve nothing but our full gratitude and recognition, and we must give them the support that they need.

Upon reading Bill C-55, we can see that it contains measures that we hope will help veterans. It proposes some important changes: at least $58,000 per year for seriously wounded or ill veterans, those too injured to return to the workforce; a minimum of $40,000 per year no matter what the salary when serving in the Canadian Forces for those receiving the monthly earnings loss benefit; an additional monthly payment of $1,000 for life to help our most seriously wounded veterans who are no longer able to work; and improved access to the permanent impairment allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance, which will include 3,500 more veterans.

A minimum salary of $40,000 is not a lot of money. To receive $58,000 and the additional $1,000 for life, the individual has to be confined to bed and unable to move. He has to be completely incapacitated. Even that is not much money in exchange for one's health.

The Bloc Québécois is disappointed that the Conservative government did not include measures to pay the monthly pensions. The Minister of Veterans Affairs trumpeted the fact that his department was going to invest $2 billion to help veterans. That is an impressive figure, but we believe that it is poorly managed and poorly allocated.

I said before that all of the stakeholders are unanimous: they believe that the government should abandon the idea of lump sum payments and bring back the lifetime monthly pension for those who are entitled to it.

If we are not able to convince the Conservative government here in the House, we would like to hear what veterans have to say about what this government is doing when we study Bill C-55 in committee. After all, they are the ones affected by this legislation.

I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is aware of and sensitive to veterans affairs. Many veterans have had to make significant sacrifices in the defence of liberty and justice. Many veterans experience after-effects and have to live with the physical and emotional injuries they sustained during their years of service. The Bloc Québécois has the utmost respect for military personnel who risk their lives carrying out highly dangerous missions.

This profound respect implies that, since their lives are in danger, we have the responsibility not to expose them to further risk. Once their mission is complete, we have the collective responsibility to offer them all the support they need when they return home.

In its parliamentary work, our party has always been concerned about the support given to veterans and those who proudly wore a uniform. For example, we have always demanded that the government allocate all the resources possible to help soldiers and veterans and meet their health care needs, particularly in the case of individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

The government will allocate a $1,000 taxable supplement to veterans with permanent disabilities who can no longer return to the labour market. It is expected that 500 veterans will benefit from this measure in the first five years after this bill comes into effect.

We believe that, given the nature of the situation, this $1,000 supplement should be exempt from tax. We are offering this money to veterans who fought and sacrificed their well-being at their government's request. This monthly supplement will be paid to veterans who are unable to hold gainful employment because of their injuries. Not only will they have to live with their injuries for the rest of their lives, but they will also never be able to have a normal financial life because of those injuries. Why penalize them further by making the supplement taxable?

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the veterans ombudsman invited parliamentarians to reject a system that would give veterans a choice, as Bill C-55 does. He felt that this option would not do any good because most veterans would choose a lump sum payment. With that in mind, the ombudsman urged parliamentarians to take a tough love approach with veterans.

On top of that, we were also disappointed with the amount in question. The Bloc Québécois would have liked the government to increase the maximum level of compensation. At present, the maximum payout for a disability award is $276,000. However, if we went back to a lifetime monthly pension, veterans could receive between 15% and 35% more than they are receiving now. Thus, the $2 billion the government wants to inject simply amounts to payments that it has not made and that it owes our veterans. That money is there for precisely that purpose. The new duties, the new amount and the new money set out in this bill will serve only to pay small amounts and line the government's pockets.

On behalf of our veterans, I cannot help but wonder why the government did not respond to the concerns of veterans regarding the lump sum payment. A study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs found that 31% of veterans were happy with what they received, while the minister promised new improvements to the lump sum payment.

Instead, the government merely divided up the payment differently, for example, as a partial lump sum and partial annual payments over any number of years the recipient chooses, or as a single lump sum payment.

In that regard, the Royal Canadian Legion would still like the department to address the amount of the lump sum payment, which currently stands at a maximum of $276,000. In Canada, disabled workers receive on average $329,000. Australian service members receive about $325,000, and British service members receive almost $1 million. The government is trying to save money on the backs of our veterans, as I said earlier. Everywhere else in the world, veterans receive much higher sums and that money is managed much better than in Canada. Here the government is always trying to save a few pennies to put money elsewhere. The government spent $1.2 billion on the G8 and G20 summits, and nothing was achieved in those three days. It could have used that money to help our veterans.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his presentation on Bill C-55.

The government has made some improvements over the previous Liberal government, but these improvements took a long time coming. As a matter of fact, it was only through the efforts of people like our critic, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who basically lives and breathes these issues and fights constantly on behalf of the veterans of this country, that we get improvements from the government.

My concern is that it was a big mistake for us to adopt any form of lump sum payment. The government likes the lump sum because it thinks it can walk away from the liability. We are dealing with a lot of young people who get injured, are under a lot of stress and it is attractive for them to opt for a lump sum. However, when the money is gone, and there are lots of examples of how the money disappeared very quickly, the problem still remains and the government would have to come back at some future point to take care of the problem.

Does the member agree that lump sum payment issues should not be part of this process?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today to conclude my remarks on Bill C-55. To be clear on the issue, the Liberal Party recognizes the great value of the legislation.

At every opportunity in the veterans affairs committee reference has been made to Bill C-55. It is in good part due to the fact that we want to ensure we do everything possible to see the bill in committee. I get the sense there is a willingness in the chamber to see this bill move forward. Members of the committee, including me, are anxious to see the bill come before us. I suspect it is only a question of time before it does.

Bill C-55 would address income loss, base salaries and lump sum payments. These are all important issues to our veterans and we owe it to them to do our work as quickly and as diligently as we can.

Some members in debate have nudged others to move forward on the legislation. One of the things I would share with the House is the fact that the Liberal Party does not require any nudging on the bill. We see its value. We have an immense amount of respect for our veterans and we ultimately want to see it pass.

I have had opportunities in the past, as I am sure my colleagues have, to deal with veterans. A number of years ago veterans actually sat right behind us in the Manitoba legislature. I thought it was appropriate. I remember sitting in the chamber, being able to reach back and touch one of the veterans, thinking we were able to have that debate because of our veterans.

We recognize the valuable contributions that our veterans have made to who we are today as a free nation. We need to do whatever we can to extend adequate compensation to them for the sacrifices they have made.

Being on veterans affairs committee, I recognize it is important for us to go even further than what the legislation proposes to do. Compensation is critical, and I cannot emphasize how important it is that we get that compensation to our veterans. However, there are other things which the government should seriously look at doing.

I did not know, and I suspect a good number of members of Parliament would not be aware of this either, that we have in excess of 750,000 veterans in Canada, which is an amazing number. They participate in our society in so many ways. We have to think beyond even what we will pass today.

Bill C-55 would allow for income loss and other forms of compensation so our veterans would be more properly and adequately taken care of, and that is great. However, much like other issues, we need to do more in preventing some of the illnesses and injuries that occur.

We had a psychiatrist, who is a colonel in Australia, on video conference the other day. I was really impressed with what Australia has put into place to assist future veterans so their dependency on compensation, on disability, will not be as high, especially in the area of mental illness.

I will highlight a couple of those points.

Australia is prepared to put in the necessary resources to ensure there are minimal compensation packages after someone leaves the service. That is a direction in which we should move. We should be putting more emphasis on that in our Parliament.

To give members a sense of what Australia does, it looks at the complications and the mind games that take place in today's forces. It has a psychological training component incorporated within its boot camp system for everyone who enters the forces.

Recognizing that not everyone, even from within the boot camp, might be engaged in a situation like Afghanistan or other countries of that nature, where there are all sorts of turmoil, Australia also has developed what it calls a pre-deployment course. Once someone has been deployed to Afghanistan, for example, another training session takes place and there is a psychological component to that training. That, again, is the way to go.

Taking it even a step further, Australia has after-disengagement training. After they have served in a country like Afghanistan and they come back, there is a post-course provided that will assist them in dealing with the issues they had to face while they were in a foreign country.

Equally important, Australia also has a transition course component. When people leave the forces and they go back into civilian life, they are afforded the opportunity to have that course which will, in essence, assist them in better adapting into civilian life.

This is the type of progressive thinking that is necessary in order to meet the needs of future Canadians who make the decision to serve our country. Ultimately, I would encourage the government to seriously look at this.

I posed a question about cost. There should be no doubt. There will be an additional upfront cost in ensuring that we have the right complement of psychiatry and other potential professions within the regular forces so we have those courses and give legitimacy to them.

However, by investing at that end, we are assisting individuals going forward so when they decide to sign on the dotted line, enter our forces and maybe serve in a country like Afghanistan or in another country, come back and ultimately end up back in the civilian life, they will be better able to adjust.

I believe if it is handled appropriately or if there is a plan for investment upfront, then we will prevent many illnesses from occurring in the first place or we will be able to minimize the psychological impact of someone being in a war-torn country where there is civilian unrest and all kinds of horrors that our military personnel often confront.

Ultimately we would have a better equipped force, and this is why it is to relevant to the bill we are passing today. By doing this, future compensation requirements will not be as high. That should be the goal. Minimizing the amount of money that we would ultimately have to pay would not be the primary reason. That would be the secondary reason.

The primary reason will be the impact that it has our soldiers, once they get back into the force and once they are in full retirement. That is the real value and the primary reason why we need to move in that direction.

The secondary reason would be one of finances. I ultimately argue that there would be additional costs upfront, but at the end of the day we would save money in compensation, in terms of the potential income loss that goes up significantly because of the passage of the bill, and justifiably so, and in terms of issues such as the base salaries or the lump sum payments. That is stating the obvious.

There are so many other expenses that governments, and not only the federal government but also provincial governments, have to incur as a direct result of individuals who have been in the forces and once retired become veterans. After all, it is the individual provinces that ultimately deliver our health care services. A part of those health care services is mental health, among other things. Ottawa itself invests billions of dollars annually in public health.

When we are talking about compensation, the type of compensation we are talking about within this bill is fairly specific, but there are many other forms of compensation as well. It is not as easy to say that we have a bill, Bill C-55, and by passing it, all the issues veterans face in terms of overall compensation will be resolved.

I trust and hope that no one here would try to imply that this would be the case. This bill, from my perspective and I believe from the perspective of the Liberal Party, is but a first step in recognizing the value of our veterans and the importance of the House of Commons to adequately and properly compensate those men and women who have sacrificed a portion of their life in order to ensure we have what we have today.

We can do more. I encourage the government, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and others, cabinet and all members, opposition included, to do more to support our vets. It is not just this bill. This bill is a very good first step and we look forward to seeing it in committee, but that is what it is, a first step.

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of Supply

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we had a bit of a disagreement with our friends in the New Democratic Party. I am happy to say that we have worked very constructively with the New Democratic Party, the House leader, the Liberal House leader and the Bloc Québécois House leader and I am pleased to say that I would like to advise that the allotted day designated for today be instead designated for tomorrow. I would like to advise that it is the intention of the government to call Bill C-55 and Bill C-60 today.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, after no more than three further speakers from each recognized party have spoken on the second reading motion of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, Bill C-55 shall be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs provided that any member rising to speak may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes.

The clerk has advised me that if we don't get the minister here next week, it will be unlikely that we can get witnesses here for that, so either Bill C-55 is there or we will contemplate what we're going to do when we come back. I have talked to my analyst, and he could bring in a version of a report that we could look at. We'll see if we can put something like that, because there might be something there, and we could ask other witnesses to fill in the blanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Anyway, we've talked these things all over here again. Bill C-55 will be looked after in this committee once it goes through the House and is directed to this committee. As far as that goes, I know my analyst has said also that if we're looking at when we want to present a report to the House, then we work backwards from there in terms of how many days it is going to take us to analyze the report and to okay it. Again, the biggest thing is Bill C-55. Is it going to be in this committee for one day, one week, one month? Does our analyst not even have to worry about doing a report?

I think that we have to get our ducks in a row. Our big thing right now is that for the next two or three meetings, we have to work around the minister to see if we can get the minister here to do the estimates. If we can do the 7th, the 9th, or the 21st with the minister, what we're going to try to do is to work around that with our witnesses. We'll see when Bill C-55 comes back up to the House when it gets sent to this committee, because it will have to be fitted in, and if we're doing whatever we're doing, we'll have do work things out then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll go to Ms. Sgro.

In answer to Mr. Vincent, Bill C-55 will be coming in here. That's what you're talking about, so it will be discussed.

Go ahead, Ms. Sgro.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Kerr was saying earlier that Bill C-55 should be adopted as soon as possible. I still have questions for the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding compensation.

In a report I read, the figures involved in the three cases mentioned were 4%, 40% and 100%. The report also said that it is more lucrative to be subject to the old charter than to the new one. I want to sort this out. Most of our witnesses have said that they had suffered injuries and that less than 40% of them received compensation for those injuries. If that is the case, the new Veterans Charter is currently not in the best interest of the injured. I am wondering whether a pension plan could be more beneficial for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Welcome back. We'll go into our business part of the meeting here if we can. I have to try to let my clerk have a little direction here. She's been running into a little bit of trouble with some of our witnesses.

We do have two witnesses for Wednesday, and there are three other witnesses who are still on the list. Two of them are quite difficult. They're Americans, and they're in the States. She's having a hard time to arrange even a teleconferencing with them, so we might end up with just one more witness after Wednesday. We're looking for direction on where to go from there.

I don't know when this committee would like to look at the supplementary estimates (C). It could possibly be on the 7th or 9th or the 21st. They have to be looked at and done by the 21st. We could schedule that in for the 7th if that would happen, if you want to look at the supplementary estimates. I think that would be advisable. We should be able to get through the supplementary estimates in one meeting, but would you like to just leave the 9th in case we don't get through it on the 7th? We could do that.

Bill C-55is coming down the pipe at some point; I don't know when it comes up in the House again. It will be directed to this committee. Once that happens, it takes precedence, so we'll have to work that in. If we could set the supplementary estimates for this--

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill S-10 and Bill C-49, we will call them when the time is right and when we can get these important pieces of legislation passed by the House of Commons.

With respect to accelerated parole, we found the time was right this week to get that bill done. I want to thank all members of the House for their consideration, particularly those members who supported that important legislation to stop fraudsters, who steal $100 million from seniors' retirement savings, from only having to go to jail for one-sixth of their sentence. I want to thank all the members who supported that important legislation, particularly on third reading.

Today, we will continue with the Liberal opposition motion. We heard a great speech by the member for Wascana at the outset of this Parliament.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-42, the strengthening civil aviation security; Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade bill; and Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter, on which the Minister of Veterans Affairs has done a phenomenal job. I think there have been consultations with the parties, which is good news. We also will call Bill C-20, an action plan for the National Capital Commission. I know there has been a considerable amount of very non-partisan discussion among all the parties. We will have that bill at report stage and then third reading. There will be a few amendments and we have already had some discussion with some members on this.

Next week, as all members will know, is a week the House is not sitting. When the House returns on February 28, we will simply continue where we left off with the list of bills that I gave.

I am pleased to announce to our good friends in the new Democratic Party that Tuesday, March 1 shall be an allotted day.

Veterans

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition signed by approximately 110 people. They are asking the federal government to amend the Veterans Charter to restore the lifetime monthly pension as a means of compensation for injured soldiers.

Although the minister introduced Bill C-55, which includes new assistance measures for our injured veterans, he is still refusing to give them the best solution for them, which is a lifetime monthly pension for all injured soldiers. We hope that this petition will open the federal government's eyes to this legitimate request from the people who have signed this petition. And we hope that the government will finally fix the mistake it made when it replaced the lifetime monthly pension with a lump sum payment for injured veterans.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Larlee.

It's nice to see both of you before the committee again.

I'd like to ask you about Bill C-55 and a few other things, but we're supposed to be sticking to mental health and PTSD, so I'm going to try to stay there. Somebody else may ask some of those questions.

Of the 432 people in 2010 that you referred to, were all 432 suffering with PTSD, or mental health stresses?

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, boy, have I mellowed. I would not have said such nice things about the Badger even just a few short years ago, but I have mellowed and have become so quiet and soft-spoken since I arrived on Parliament Hill.

I would like to the thank the House leader for the official opposition for his questions.

With respect to Bill S-10, it is an incredibly important piece of legislation that goes after people who traffic in drugs, sell drugs to our children and who traffic in date rape drugs, which is something that is incredibly serious in many parts of the country. We want to see that bill passed and we will move forward on a path to allow it to be passed.

With respect to the bill on human trafficking, we want to see that passed. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. We do not want to provide the Liberal Party with an early opportunity to kill that good piece of legislation. I know they are anxious to kill legislation that is tough on crime, but we are going to stay focused.

Getting back to the business of the House, we will continue today with the Bloc opposition motion.

The parties are currently negotiating a way to proceed with Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This is a modified version of what makes up part of Bill C-39, a bill that has been at the public safety committee since October 20, 2010. This is an important piece of legislation. The thrust of it has already received agreement in principle from this House. We will be continuing the negotiations on it, or dances, depending on how one defines that, with all parties on this issue.

Given that Bill C-59 will prevent fraudsters from getting out of jail after serving only one-sixth of their sentence, I hope there is sufficient support to move on this initiative without further delay. Tomorrow, therefore, we will either debate Bill C-59 or a procedural motion relating to Bill C-59.

Following Bill C-59, the government intends on calling Bill C-42, Strengthening Aviation Security Act; Bill C-46, Canada-Panama Free Trade Act; Bill C-55, Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act; Bill C-20, An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission; Bill C-8, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act; Bill C-57, Improving Trade Within Canada Act; Bill C-50, Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act; and Bill C-12, Democratic Representation Act.

I could come back with more if we could get all of these bills passed on Monday.

That is the agenda for next week.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to rise in support of Bill C-55. I am just trying to get over the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore's suggestion that he might possibly vote for a budget. It came as quite a shock. I was caught off guard here for a moment.

This is an important step forward in dealing with the very important issues that veterans have raised. As a matter of fact, those who attended the veterans affairs committee today heard the ombudsman encourage us all to move on and get this bill forward. The reason we want to move it forward is, although it does not answer all the questions, it brings these incredibly important issues forward and makes these payments available to those veterans as soon as possible. Therefore, I encourage all members to support the bill and get it through.

This new enhanced veterans charter act only fulfills a promise made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to improve the financial benefits available to injured Canadian Forces members and veterans. However, it also reflects how this government listens to our veterans.

The measures I speak to today amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act proposed by the previous government, commonly known as the new veterans charter. The act received royal assent in 2005, passing unanimously through both this House and the other place.

At the time, it was a groundbreaking piece of legislation. It focused on giving our service men and women the tools to live healthy and productive lives once out in the civilian world. We are hearing that more and more, not about the payments on a regular basis but the support mechanisms, the compensation, and the initiatives that help these brave men and women get back into regular life and live a good, normal life for as long as they possibly can.

Experts agree with the approach. Various advisory councils agreed with this approach as well. We knew at the outset that developing new legislation for our new generation of veterans would not be without its challenges. Today we are five years into the new veterans charter and have gained valuable insight and experience.

We rarely acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns with the charter and we are responding to them in real and meaningful ways. Although it will not all be fixed at once, this definitely is a very important step forward. That is why we have introduced these changes that will benefit thousands of veterans over the coming five years. These improvements underscore our government's deep commitment to repay the growing debt we owe Canada's veterans and their families.

Following extensive discussions with veterans right across the country, we have proposed our first step in moving the veterans' concerns forward.

The bill contains three key financial benefits that will improve the life of thousands of new veterans.

First, it improves access to the permanent impairment allowance under the new veterans charter and the exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act.

Second, it introduces a $1,000-a-month supplement for severely injured veterans who are unable to be gainfully employed and who are already receiving the permanent impairment allowance.

Finally, it gives Canadian Forces members and veterans a choice on payment options for the disability award.

One of the key features of the new veterans charter is the disability award, or lump sum payment as it is better known. Certainly, we have talked about this at length in the past few months.

For the record, I am not sure how much clearer I can be than to say that the disability award is for pain and suffering. I would like to say this in no uncertain terms. The disability award is not a pension. It is not a monetary pension set for that purpose. It is to recognize the pain and suffering these terrific people have gone through.

Each of these improvements is designed to address concerns we have heard from veterans and their families, other stakeholders, as well as through our own evaluations. They spoke and we have listened. Now we are acting, just like we said we would do all along.

Allow me to provide some detail on each of these important initiatives.

The permanent impairment allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance provide monthly support for veterans whose disabilities result in permanent and severe impairments. They also recognize that serious injuries such as amputation, loss of vision, hearing or speech, or severe and permanent psychiatric conditions are not only physically devastating but can result in diminished employment potential.

It takes very little imagination to see that they can affect a person's ability to earn a living. As we know, that inability to support one's self can be just as devastating to one's health as the physical injury.

These allowances were a progressive move but in retrospect access was too limited. Currently, only a handful of veterans receive it, and clearly it is not providing the support and financial independence it was supposed to provide. By adjusting the eligibility criteria for these allowances, thousands more veterans will be eligible to receive monthly financial support.

The permanent impairment allowance provides $536 to $1,609 per month to seriously injured veterans, depending on the extent of their injuries. Our determination to stand by our veterans and men and women in uniform does not end there. These new changes also offer up to $1,269 per month under the exceptional impairment allowance.

Many individuals with serious disabilities can and do continue to work with the help of rehabilitation and other supports. Some, however, simply cannot. Additional measures in Bill C-55 offer an extra $1,000 per month to veterans who receive the permanent impairment allowance and who cannot return to work at all at full potential due to the severity of their impairment.

While the new veterans charter in place today is a great foundation, we recognize the need for adjustments in legislation to address the shortcomings we have only come to realize through experience.

Through consultation with veterans and their advocates and with good research and study, we now know what can be adapted and adjusted to better fit the evolving needs of modern day veterans and their families. Veterans themselves have told us what we need to do and we are doing it.

A perfect example of that feedback is how we have made some changes in the regulations for the earnings loss benefit, another financial support under the new veterans charter.

Changes to our regulations will guarantee recipients of the monthly earnings loss benefit a minimum of $40,000 per year, no matter what their salary was when they were serving in the Canadian Forces. This important change will benefit veterans who were released early in their careers when they held a low rank in the military or for those veterans who were released years ago when military salaries were much lower.

Finally, this legislation would provide veterans with a choice of how they wish to receive their disability award.

This tax free disability award was established to recognize the pain and suffering caused by a service-related injury. As I mentioned earlier, it does not replace a pension. In fact, it was a completely new benefit in 2006. There was never recognition for the non-economic losses associated with an injury prior to the new veterans charter.

This new legislation would allow veterans to choose whether to receive their disability award as a lump sum, in annual payments, or a combination of each. Furthermore, at any time, veterans who so choose may change their minds and receive the remaining amount as a lump sum payment.

This action was taken because veterans themselves asked for it. The decision demonstrates our government's commitment to amend and improve elements of the new veterans charter. It is not about turning back the clock but instead responding to sound advice and recommendations, so that we have a strong array of programs geared to the needs of our modern day veterans.

This government's priority is to ensure that Canada's veterans and their families have the support they need when they need it. We are committed to extending these supports as soon as possible, and we urge the House to join us in giving veterans what they need to live their lives with honour and respect, comfort and dignity.

The minister has worked hard on bringing forward a lot of changes. We have heard a lot about the many changes over the past year. We heard the many concerns that were expressed and we are responding to those in a timely fashion. As well, changes are taking place within the department to better adapt to and respond to the needs of our veterans on a first case basis.

Along with what else is going on, we believe that this initiative today is not the end of the journey, but is a strong start in response to those important priorities veterans have brought before us over these past few months.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his support and collaboration throughout the development of the new measures in support of our veterans that we are preparing to implement through Bill C-55. I also want to thank him for understanding that we have to move quickly in order to pass this bill before the budget is introduced. Since there are election rumours, we do not know what is going to happen and in that context, our veterans deserve to have this right away.

The hon. member is talking about taking tiny steps, but this is a whole new chapter we are writing for the new veterans charter, new measures that will help protect in a much more tangible and significant way those who, by misfortune, might return injured from Afghanistan. In that context, these measures are a step in the right direction.

I want to come back to the amount that other countries give as a lump sum payment. I want to remind hon. members that in the United Kingdom, the payments are usually around $8,927, while in Canada it is $28,532 and on average it is $40,000. Only a very small number of people have received the maximum amounts in the United Kingdom, while here far more people have.

We could add many things, but at some point we have to set priorities in life and it is exceptional for a minister and a department to get $2 billion from their government during a recession. That shows how important veterans are to us and that is why the government is moving forward to support our veterans.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party to indicate its initial support for Bill C-55. As I have already told the minister in private and in public, New Democrats will be supporting the principle of the bill. It has been indicated to the minister privately and publicly that it is a tiny step forward, that the government should have moved one way but went the other way.

We know that any time opposition can get the government to move, that is a good thing. It is nowhere near what New Democrats would like, but in fairness to the minister, I honestly think he is trying to do the very best he can within the constraints of the Conservative government.

Let us go over the merits of Bill C-55. I first want to thank the minister for listening to the debate today and working with members possibly through committee to make slight alterations to the bill to improve it. In all of the bills that come from government, especially the Conservatives, we see the word “may” written often. For those of us who have done collective bargaining, which my colleague from Hamilton would know very well, the word “may” means whatever one wants it to. It means that one may or may not do something.

Subsection 3(2) is where the bill gets a bit redundant. This program is already enshrined in the new veterans charter, but it is repeated in the bill, which states:

The Minister may, on application, provide career transition services to a member’s or a veteran’s spouse, common-law partner or survivor if the spouse, common-law partner or survivor meets the prescribed eligibility requirements.

That is already in the new veterans charter. One has to ask why it is in this bill.

If we go further down the page, there is a mistake. Section 12 is complete in the French language, but it is not complete in the English language. I would ask the minister to ensure his staff or the legal people get that completed before it goes to committee.

The word “may” is all over the map in the bill. New Democrats have a concern with that. The minister is right that he does not determine who has PTSD or any kind of medical concerns. That is up to the experts. However, when those experts make a decision and that decision is forwarded to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board or to the Department of Veterans Affairs , then the minister may want to do something. The minister may wish to allocate this or that program. The minister may or may not decide to do something to help veterans or their families. That word in a couple of paragraphs needs to be changed.

The word “shall” in some paragraphs should be changed. When it comes to the payment aspect, New Democrats will agree that the word “may” can stay, but not in any collective bargaining or contractual obligations. We call it a weasel word. We know the minister did not intend to do that in any way, shape or form, but we will have this discussion at an appropriate time.

As well, I have been in contact with all veterans organizations over the past few months about the bill. One of the things they have asked me to do on behalf of New Democrats and the opposition is to ensure that I talk with my Bloc and Liberal counterparts to seek their support to move the bill through the process fairly quickly. I indicated that I would and I am glad to see that Liberal and Bloc members have, although with reservation and they are right to express concern, agreed to move it forward.

I remember the days when the veterans charter was being discussed. Jack Stagg, the former deputy minister, may God rest his soul as he is no longer with us, before the implementation of the bill invited the various veterans groups to the process of the bill making, as well as the critics of the opposition, before the bill was even drafted so the minister could say that this is what he wanted to do and how could he get members' help to move it through even quicker.

The bill could have already been passed by now. If the government really wants to speed this along, I have advice for the minister for next time, and we hope there will be a next time, very soon hopefully, because we know this is one step forward of many steps that have to happen. The next time legislative changes are required that need the opposition's support, he should call us in advance. We would be more than happy to sit down with the department to give our acceptance or not in that regard. That way he would know how quickly something could be passed.

We know when it comes to veterans the last thing we wish to do, in any way, is to hold up something that may be beneficial to veterans and their families.

I talked about the fact that the bill is a small step forward. The new veterans charter divided veterans in this country into three classes. Right now, for example, World War II and Korean veterans who have a disability that is severe enough may be eligible to go to a hospital like the Camp Hill in Halifax, Ste. Anne's Hospital in Quebec, Colonel Belcher in Calgary, or the Perley here in Ottawa. Not every World War II or Korean veteran has access to those beds.

By the time we go to bed tonight this country will lose another 110 to 120 of its World War II and Korean heroes because of the passage of time. It is unfortunate, but time has caught up with them.

What will happen to those hospital beds when the last of the World War II and Korean veterans pass away? Right now, modern-day veterans from post-1953 do not have access to those beds. This is going to be a problem. We hope the government will look at this problem seriously and understand that there are now over 750,000 current veterans, RCMP members and their families.

There are going to be some 600,000-plus Korean and World War II veterans, many of them in their late 60s and early or late 70s, who are going to require long-term care or hospital care as a result of injuries suffered during their time in service. Right now they have to depend on the provinces to get that help. We hope the government will look at this serious problem and work with us to facilitate their having access to facilities.

Over the holidays we heard about SISIP. My friend, Dennis Manuge, a veteran from Porters Lake, challenged the government on the SISIP deductibility from his veterans pension, which is a clawback. Representing over 6,500 veterans in this country, the class action law suit made it all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled unanimously that the class action suit can proceed.

There are 6,500 disabled veterans this class action law suit affects. They have been asking for years that the previous government and the current government fix this problem once and for all. In fact, two DND ombudsmen have said to fix it. The previous veterans affairs ombudsman said it must be fixed. Two votes in the House of Commons said it must be fixed. The veterans affairs committees of the House and the Senate said it must be fixed.

Yet 6,500 veterans and their families have had to seek legal redress to get this fixed. The minister and the government could stand in the House of Commons and say that this court action and this legal action will stop now. Officials would meet with members of the class action law suit, Dennis Manuge and his group, and come to a reasonable compromise that is fair for the veterans and fair for the taxpayer.

I suspect, because I have seen it before, that the government is going to continue to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money fighting disabled veterans for what they so rightfully deserve. That is one thing the government could do to fix it right now. We said that the bill is step in the right direction, but it needs to go further.

We have talked about vocational training. I thanked theMinister of National Defence for his comments when he said that the DVA is now starting to look for veterans to be employed within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The problem is that a military person with 23 years of experience may have 5 or 6 weeks of vacation entitlement time. If they become disabled, become a veteran and then go to work for DVA, they go all the way back to the bottom of the vacation entitlement plan. They go down to three weeks. They are not entitled to carry their years of military service over to DVA. Under the law, members of the military are not considered public servants.

The same applied to the RCMP and the RCMP were successful in taking the government to court to change that aspect of it.

We are telling the government that it is one line that it can change that would allow members of the military who are injured and need to leave the service, if they get jobs in DVA or other aspects of the public service, which the new veterans charter allows them priority service hiring, to take the years of service they provided to Canada with them. That is a simple thing that can be done and it would bring smiles to many veterans who find themselves in that case. It is a simple thing to be done and we hope the government will do that.

The government could do another thing to help veterans out. Let us imagine military persons with over 35 years service who have served their country, have travelled the world and have left behind their families many times as they have gone to serve in Bosnia, Afghanistan or wherever. They are 55 years old right now and all of a sudden, unfortunately, their spouse passes away. As sad as that is, it happens all the time.

If they are lucky enough and fortunate enough to remarry another person at 59 years old, great. They live for 20 years, they die and their second spouse would be entitled to their superannuation pension. However, if that individual had the audacity to marry the second person at age 60, lived for 20 years and died, the second spouse would get nothing. That is called the “marriage after 60” clause or, as we call it, “the gold digger clause”.

In fact, Werner Schmidt, a former Reform Party member of Parliament, now the Conservatives, and my colleague over there knows him quite well, introduced legislation in the House to ban the marriage after 60 act. If we were to remove one line in the legislation, we would be done, but, no, after all these years we are still fighting that clause. The reality is that when a military person, an RCMP member or whomever remarries, it should not matter to the government when they remarry. We know the law was put in during the Boer War, well over 100 years ago. The British government was worried that young girls would marry older veterans for that pension cheque. I am sure even the minister would know that is rightly unfair.

That is one thing the government could do right now to help many veterans and their spouses. If they are fortunate enough to find the love of their life once, that is great. If they get to do it twice, that is really remarkable. When they remarry should be no concern at all to Government of Canada, whether they remarry at 59 years and 364 days day, but on that 365th day, at age 60, they get nothing later in the future. That needs to change.

Those are just some of the aspects of change that could happen.

Another one is the agent orange aspect. We know that the current government, when it was in opposition, promised so much more on agent orange compensation for those folks who were affected from spraying in Gagetown from 1958 to 1984. In fact, the former minister of veterans affairs and the current Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, said very clearly in Gagetown that they would look after everyone affected by chemical spraying from 1958 to 1984.

However, when the Conservatives became government, they implemented a plan that was even more restricted than what the Liberals were offering. The Liberals were offering that only those people in 1966 and 1967 affected by the spraying of agent orange that could be claimed back to the American aspect of the involvement in Gagetown would be compensated.

However, then we need to go to February 6. I am glad to see that the minister just recently changed that requirement and allowed many more people to make the application for agent orange.

However, the minister and the government knows that will only help about 1,100 more people. There are thousands upon thousands more people who were affected by chemical spraying in Gagetown. The one simple thing that we would ask is exactly what they asked when they were in opposition: a public inquiry into the spraying at Gagetown. If the minister were to stand and say that we will have a public inquiry as to the spraying at Gagetown, that would go a long way toward alleviating a lot of concerns for veterans and civilians. Those are the things that the Conservatives called for when they were in opposition.

Those are just a few of the items that the government can do in order to move the yardstick on veterans' care.

I will give the current minister some high marks. I have travelled with him on a couple of occasions already and I have seen that his interaction with veterans and their families is truly sincere. In fact, all of the ministers with whom I have associated since my time in 1997 have been nothing but sincere and true. Whether they were Conservatives or Liberals, I know that each and everyone of them truly wanted to do the very best they could to help the veterans and their families.

It is time to put those kind thoughts and words into action. Bill C-55 is a small start. There are a couple of small amendments that we may have to look at in committee. However, one of the recommendations I would make for the government for future legislation is that it increase the amount of payment that comes out, which right now is $276,000. It should easily be double and never in a lump sum payment for younger people. I do admit that if the government is willing to offer quite a large amount of money to people in their late 50s or early 60s, it may be something that they would want to think about. However, for people in their early 20s or 30s, it would be a major mistake to take that kind of money right off the bat.

We have a lot of people in DVA who will make the determination of whether a person is severely injured or not. We know it will not be the minister doing that. We would like to know how that determination is actually done, because we frequently hear that people who are severely disabled or severely injured or cannot continue in their employment, they can receive these benefits. Who determines that? How is that preordained?

Right now in many of the cases we have, one of the things I despise the most within the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I say it with great respect to people in that area, is the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. That is something I would like to see done away with in a heartbeat. If it cannot be done away with, then we should do what the minister said. He did not say this but I will say it for him. Instead of putting political friends on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the government should starting putting people on that board who have military, policing or medical experience so that when people go before the VRAP, they are adjudicated by their peers, not political hacks and flacks.

That, by the way, is what the Conservatives said in the convention in 2005 or 2006. At the convention, they actually said that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board would be replaced by people of medical, military and policing history. That is what we would like to see on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Right now we have a bunch of folks there who have never served one day in their lives and they are adjudicating on people who have served valiantly for their country, who have signed the unlimited liability. We have the ultimate responsibility for their and their families' needs.

At the same time, when we talk about veterans and their families, we also need to include members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is why I happen to be wearing the RCMP tie today. I believe the members of the RCMP serve their country just as much as those in the military and they should be treated together. I would hope that some of the benefits that are applied to veterans eventually will apply to members of the RCMP.

Those are some of the issues we have issued to the minister. We want to thank the minister for cracking open the door on the new veterans charter. It is a living document. We do not want it to die on Bill C-55. We want it improved and we want it done quickly. We know the resources are there to help. We in the NDP, and I am sure my Liberal and Bloc colleagues, will do everything we can to assist the Minister of Veterans Affairs who is a really decent guy, to move forward quickly on all the aspects we have talked about in order to make the lives of our true heroes of this country better for the long term.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his support for Bill C-55, which will significantly improve the various services we offer to our veterans, particularly modern-day ones, and notably in terms of finances.

That said, I am hearing some things that surprise me. I told myself that perhaps I was not fully understood, so I would like to take the time to say it again. First of all, when someone suffers from post-traumatic operational stress disorder, or PTSD, the minister does not decide whether the person is afflicted with this disorder or not. Psychologists and psychiatrists meet with the person and determine whether he is suffering from the disorder. When the files were reviewed, it was found that 80% of first-level requests were granted. I just recently got these statistics from the department.

Next, I would like to speak about the permanent monthly allowance. I said earlier that we have three types of services. First, if a veteran participates in a rehabilitation program, he or she will receive a minimum of $40,000. For example, a soldier who is wounded in Afghanistan and participates in a rehabilitation program upon returning home would receive this amount. Second, there is the permanent monthly allowance, which is somewhat reminiscent of the old pension system. This is an allowance that ranges from a monthly minimum of $536 up to $1,609, depending on the extent of the veteran's injuries. An additional $1,000 per month is added to that amount if the veteran is unable to return to work. So, if we take this monthly amount and add it to the $40,000, the veteran is receiving a minimum of $58,000. If the veteran is very severely injured, he or she will receive up to $71,668. That is what will be granted. However, we look at the two amounts separately, we see a permanent monthly allowance that is equal to the lifetime pension. Under our bill, this amount will increase from $1,536 to $2,639 for veterans who cannot return to work. I think it is important to clarify that aspect.

Finally—

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, introduced by the government to help veterans.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill, as we have said repeatedly here today. I heard our Liberal colleague say that it is a step forward and will help improve things for our veterans. We are talking about people who sacrifice their lives or who live the rest of their lives with injuries suffered during a combat mission.

The Bloc Québécois has always been very concerned about the well-being of veterans. We parliamentarians can sometimes have serious disagreements about the validity of a mission, as was demonstrated by the debate we had on the mission in Afghanistan. But when it comes to supporting veterans, the Bloc Québécois is always there, and we firmly believe that veterans should not have to pay the political price of this debate. They have sacrificed much of their safety, their well-being and their health. Therefore, when it comes to veterans who are injured or have a disability, we cannot be tight-fisted or frugal; rather, we must be generous in compensating these individuals. We must express our gratitude and recognition by providing them with all the help and support they need, and whatever their families and children need.

The bill contains measures that we hope will help veterans considerably. We are disappointed, however, as I have repeatedly told the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that the Conservative government decided not to include a lifetime monthly pension, as many veterans in Quebec called for in petitions presented here in the House. That measure, which veterans were entitled to under the old veterans charter, should have been restored.

The minister said many times that there were not necessarily any changes and that the primary goal was to reintegrate veterans into the workforce. But that was always the goal; that is nothing new. We strongly believe that having a lump sum payment instead of a lifetime monthly pension, as we had before, is a considerable loss for our veterans.

Bill C-55 proposes legislative amendments to the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. As I already said, this bill would amend the eligibility criteria for the long term disability plan and would provide an extra $1,000 per month to veterans who are receiving these disability benefits and who are unable to return to the workforce. This affects many people who, after participating in a military mission in a theatre of war, return nearly 100% disabled and unable to actively return to work.

This bill also offers veterans the choice between a single lump sum payment and the same amount spread out over a set period of time. A combination of these two options is also available.

Here is an example of the losses experienced by veterans. From our discussions with people working with veterans, we know that, in general, based on the cases handled, veterans are more likely to be 20% or 25% disabled than 100% disabled.

According to the previous veterans' charter, compensation was provided to a veteran at a rate of 20%, so he could receive $600, $700 or $800 per month for the rest of his life. When a young person received compensation for an accident in the theatre of war, he generally received compensation at a rate of 20% or 25%. If we are talking about $280,000, that means the person would receive approximately $50,000 from then on, at the age of 22 or 23. Before, that person could receive $600 to $800 a month for life, for physical or mental loss. As we mentioned earlier, post-traumatic stress disorder affects many military personnel.

The Bloc Québécois has the utmost respect for military personnel who carry out highly dangerous missions and risk their lives to express the will of the people. This profound respect justly implies that, since their lives are in danger, we have the responsibility not to expose them to further risk. Once their mission is complete, we have the collective responsibility to offer them all the necessary support when they return home.

Of course, this support must be given to veterans, but it must also be given to their spouses, families, loved ones and children. There is still a lot of work to do on that front.

And in terms of post-traumatic stress disorder, we heard many testimonies to the effect that the spouse of the person afflicted had not necessarily been informed about possible behaviours, or their reactions, or the potential help available to them.

I would ask the minister, who is present here, to listen to what I am about to say. A number of witnesses told us in committee that when they needed a psychologist or psychiatrist to get help for post-traumatic stress disorder and they contacted Veterans Affairs, it was often difficult to access those services. We heard it over and over again in committee: people told us that they did not feel that it was an easy task. There are members here from all parties who sit on the committee and can attest to that.

We have an idea of the dynamic of all those wanting psychological therapy, and often they are men. I worked in a CLSC network and men often have more difficulty than women recognizing their psychological weaknesses. It is difficult enough to ask for help, but when a person asks officials at Veterans Affairs and the request for help is not necessarily well received and it is difficult to receive compensation for the services the person needs, then there is a problem. I invite the minister to take a closer look at this as well. It is important.

The Bloc Québécois will always support any measure to help veterans. The Bloc Québécois has always defended the principle that we must not abandon our veterans when they return from difficult missions or when they end a career spent defending their fellow citizens.

For example, in budget 2009, the Conservatives announced various measures, as hon. members will recall. Budget 2009 maintains the $30 million annual investment included in budget 2007, for the period from 2007 to 2012. Budget 2009 also maintains the $302 million investment over five years announced in budget 2008. That amount will go to Veterans Affairs Canada in order to increase support for war veterans.

However, out of the $3.4 billion estimates, budget 2009 announced that $24 million would be saved by streamlining internal and administrative resources without affecting services.

We wondered about that and we met with certain stakeholders, because those savings worried us. I do not know how it is being carried out on the ground. The cuts are determined by executives or administrators and, often, they target the lower levels. It is important to be vigilant about service delivery. I do not want to go too far on this issue, but I am concerned about the cuts.

The Bloc Québécois will support maintaining past investments to help veterans. However, given the scope of the mission in Afghanistan and the number of Canadians wounded in this theatre of operations, the federal government could have increased its investment.

Bill C-55 is certainly a start and a step in the right direction. It is important to recognize that, although some of the measures improve the assistance provided to veterans with disabilities, there is still work to do. The Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that the government could have done more, namely by returning to a lifetime monthly pension, which is not included in the bill.

Despite all the debate and the demonstrations that took place on November 11 in Quebec, people called for the return of the lifetime monthly pension. The minister seems to want to avoid the issue by saying that, despite everything, veterans receive a lump sum payment and a pension. However, when veterans return to the labour market, they no longer receive that pension. The only amount they receive for a disability resulting from an injury sustained in the theatre of operations is 20 to 25%. Most of these people return to the labour market and are able to return to society.

Bill C-55 is part of a legislative process that dates back to at least 2005. At that time, the new veterans charter was supposed to be a major reform designed to completely overhaul the veterans compensation system.

It was the Liberals who put forward the new veterans charter. In some cases, the compensation provisions for wounded veterans were covered by the Pension Act, the terms of which dated back to World War I. With the new veterans from the campaign in Afghanistan, it became urgent to review the process to adapt to the new reality and to provide help to those who needed it.

In committee, some people told us they had received, among other invoices, an $8 invoice for the cost of the sheet the soldier had been wrapped in. Fortunately, things have changed. That would have been rather traumatic.

The new veterans charter differentiates between financial benefits intended to compensate for the loss of revenue a veteran experiences when he or she can no longer work because of an injury sustained while serving in the Canadian Forces and the sums paid to compensate for pain and suffering associated with an injury sustained while on duty. That is why the veteran will lose the financial benefits but will continue to receive his or her disability benefits. Under the old system, the pension amount would diminish if the veteran's condition improved, which encouraged people to focus more on the deficiencies rather than on rehabilitation.

I would like to make my point by asking a question. What is the current situation of our veterans? This bill is supposedly going to help them. As we saw in committee, it is becoming increasingly clear that veterans need help.

During our many meetings, we learned that the suicide rate among veterans is higher than in the general population. Statistics show that one out of six people returning from a military theatre of operations will be afflicted with post-traumatic stress. These people, who are often very young, need psychological and social support, which is not always available in isolated, rural regions. Veterans returning home far from large urban centres had a hard time receiving the services they needed. Veterans have often said that in order to support them, people need to understand their reality. In isolated, rural regions, it might be difficult to find experts to help someone who is suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

According to the Survey on Transition to Civilian Life: Report on Regular Force Veterans, dated January 4, 2011, clients of Veterans Affairs Canada reported complex states of health. The great majority, more than 90%, reported at least one physical health condition diagnosed by a health professional—that is a very high percentage—and about half reported at least one mental health condition. Two-thirds had four to six physical and mental health conditions, and a fifth had even larger numbers of comorbid conditions, that is, the presence of two or more conditions in the same individual.

Overall, 6% of veterans reported having thoughts of suicide in the previous 12 months. Of those covered by the new veterans charter, 57% had trouble reintegrating into society.

Therefore, a great deal of work remains to be done to provide services to those who return from military missions with psychological trauma. They return to Canada and must return to society. Fifty-seven per cent is more than half; almost 6 in 10 have serious problems with reintegration.

The state of health, the degree of disability and the determinants of health of regular force veterans released from military service between 1998 and 2007 were worse than those of the general Canadian public.

I have some more statistics. Seventy-three per cent of veterans are very satisfied with their financial situation. Once they leave the forces, the satisfaction rate falls to 50% for veterans covered by the new veterans charter. Thus, 57% are dissatisfied with their financial situation once they leave the forces. Veterans covered by the new charter have their average income reduced much more sharply. Their income may be reduced by up to 64%. The income of veterans on a disability pension may drop by 56%.

There is still a lot of work to be done. This bill introduces new measures. The minimum compensation for earnings loss for a veteran in rehabilitation has been increased to $40,000, and this will affect 2,300 veterans over the next five years. Access to the permanent impairment allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance has been improved. This means that 3,500 more veterans will be eligible. There is an additional $1,000 per month being offered to veterans who receive the permanent impairment allowance and who cannot return to work. Five hundred veterans will benefit from this measure over the next five years.

That is a step in the right direction. However, there is the issue of the lump sum payment, which the veterans have requested. Replacing this amount and reinstating the lifetime monthly payment are major advances.

The minister is here, and I would like him to listen to this. We are talking about accessibility to services and services tailored to families, services that are close by, especially in rural areas such as my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé and other regions of Quebec.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in clause 49 of Bill C-55, which I hope the minister has a chance to look at, there is a slight problem. It basically says that the amount the veteran's family would receive from the disability would be payable out in whole to the estate if, and only if, the death occurred 30 days after the aggrieved injury was noticed. The problem with that of course is that PTSD can strike a person at any time. We have heard it can strike right away after a traumatic event or 20 years later.

The problem is that if the person, 20 years after the event, commits suicide because of his or her post-traumatic stress disorder, what happens to the payment? Would the person or the estate be entitled to anything at all?

This particular limit needs to be vetted at committee. I wonder if the member has any comments on clause 49 of Bill C-55.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Etobicoke North and her party will support Bill C-55.

Regarding the question of homeless people, the member heard that we had three pilot projects to try to support those people and to try to find them. That is the most important part of the problem. Where are they in the field? Some of our civil servants who work for Veterans Affairs Canada work closely with those organizations particularly in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto and, as I said, we try to find the veterans. When we find them, our department is very interested in looking at whether they should obtain support from us. All of them, may have services from our department. When we find them, that is what we do.

I saw some veterans a few days ago. They are not going anywhere in their lives. They have huge problems. When we find them, we deliver services to them. I saw some of them expanding in society. They are very pleased with what we do for them. Again, it is finding them. That is the most important thing.

I appreciate the support of the member of Parliament.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act.

Before I begin, I must honour all our veterans, their families, the fallen, and those still serving. There is no commemoration, praise or tribute that can truly match the enormity of their service and sacrifice. I want them to know that serving them has been one of the greatest privileges of my life and that their stories of sacrifice, service and strength are being heard.

For example, I will not forget the words of a few gentlemen in Halifax who survived the fire on HMCS Kootenay, the worst peacetime accident in Canadian naval history. Survivors then had to fight to prove they were on the destroyer in order to get any help from Veterans Affairs Canada.

Their life experiences affect me and all Canadians deeply, and remind us that we owe them a debt of gratitude we can never repay. Instead of trying to repay our obligation, we let them down on so many issues. For example, too many injured veterans go without the care they need. Too many veterans do not receive the support they have earned. Too many veterans have nowhere safe to sleep at night. It is truly shameful that a 92-year-old veteran in Edmonton ever had to say to me, “There is a long road to go to make this right and you must not give up because we never did”.

I, therefore, want to apologize for the fact that this year veterans across Canada yet again had to be the heroes. They had to lead us to see the injustices and push us to begin to right the wrongs. They felt compelled to organize a national day of protest to beg for the privacy, care and help they were owed and needed. We broke our sacred trust with them and for this I am profoundly sorry.

We have a moral obligation to our veterans and their families, an obligation to listen to their concerns, understand them and, most importantly, address them. Specifically, we owe them the care they were promised and the benefits they have earned.

Days before Parliament resumed this past September, the government issued a first veterans announcement. Clearly, the government did not want to return to face questions on why nothing had changed since the implementation of the new veterans charter in 2006. A series of announcements continued to trickle out throughout the fall of 2010. The Minister of Veterans Affairs tabled Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter act, on November 17.

The proposed legislation brought together several of the fall announcements and would make changes to the new veterans charter, as called for by several veterans organizations, including the Royal Canadian Legion, and would introduce changes to the administration of the lump sum disability award. Specifically, Bill C-55 would amend parts 1 to 3 of the new veterans charter, as well as part IV of the Pension Act.

On behalf of veterans, I must ask why the government waited four years to propose any change to the new veterans charter, which had been hailed as a living document, a work in progress that would be continually adapted to meet the changing needs of veterans? I must also ask why Veterans Affairs Canada did not live up to its 2006 commitment to review lump sum awards versus disability pension within two years?

Former veteran ombudsman Pat Stogran explained to the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs that such examples of lack of timely action undermine the sincerity of the chorus of loyalty to our veterans. Liberals have no intention of holding up this bill and will work in the best interests of veterans and Canadian Forces members and, most importantly, work to ensure that this bill rightfully addresses their needs.

With the rumour of an election in the future, we want to ensure the passage of Bill C-55 and its extra support for veterans.

On behalf of veterans, I must also ask why the government did not fully respond to veterans concerns about the lump sum payment. A study by the minister's own department found that 31% of veterans were unhappy with what they received.

While the minister promised new improvements to the lump sum payment, the government merely divided up the payment differently, for example, as a partial lump sum and partial annual payments over any number of years the recipient chooses, or as a single lump sum payment.

In November I met with second world war veterans, Korean war veterans, Canadian Forces veterans, reservists, RCMP and commissionaires at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 362 in Saskatoon. Every one I met believed that the government must make immediate changes to the problematic lump sum payment system. I was deeply saddened to learn that everyone knew of a veteran who had little to live on and that many veterans are working into their seventies and eighties because they need the money.

The Royal Canadian Legion would still like the department to address the amount of the lump sum payment which currently stands at a maximum of $276,000. In Canada, disabled workers receive on average $329,000. Australian service members receive about $325,000, and British service members receive almost $1 million. The Legion feels that those injured while serving their country should expect to receive at least the same amount awarded to civilian workers whose lives have been drastically changed by circumstances beyond their control.

Having pointed out this concern, there are important changes in the proposed legislation: at least $58,000 per year for seriously wounded or ill veterans, those too injured to return to the workforce; a minimum of $40,000 per year no matter what the salary when serving in the Canadian Forces for those receiving the monthly earnings loss benefit; an additional monthly payment of $1,000 for life to help our most seriously wounded veterans who are no longer able to work; improved access to the permanent impairment allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance, which will include 3,500 more veterans.

It is also important to point out what, according to the Legion, has not been addressed: a larger disability award in line with what is provided to Australian veterans and to disabled civilian workers who receive general damages awards in law court; improved funeral and burial benefits; improved earnings loss benefits to provide 100% of pre-release income and, if permanently incapacitated, provide ELB for life; projected career earnings of a Canadian Forces member should determine minimum ELB payment; and promotion of academic research to support integrated approach to establish VAC entitlement eligibility guidelines.

According to the Minister of Veterans Affairs Bill C-55 is only the first step to addressing veterans concerns, but it is a good place to start. We agree. The proposed legislation is a small step forward, and we are prepared to support this bill because our veterans need urgent help now and because the minister assures us that further changes are coming. We hope this first step represents a real shift in thinking, in acting, that will address other gaps.

What really matters is how veterans and veterans organizations feel about the proposed legislation. Dominion president Pat Varga said:

This bill, as a first step, makes great strides in improving the New Veterans Charter and encompasses many of the recommendations made by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The Legion considers that further improvements are needed to the charter on which we look forward to continuing the ongoing dialogue with [the minister].

Pierre C. Allard, service bureau director, Dominion Command, reports, “We are ready to appear at ACVA and present our views on the way ahead....but the bottom line is that we suggest strongly that Bill C-55 should be enacted as soon as possible so that veterans and their families can benefit from proposed improvements”.

The second communication reads, “with the proviso that Bill C-55 is but chapter 2 of future chapters, it should be passed as is ASAP”.

The Gulf War Veterans Association states:

“We actively seek your co-operation and your support for the expeditious passage of Bill C-55 through the House Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and during the subsequent parliamentary steps.

Although collectively we feel the bill falls somewhat short in addressing all the problems of the New Veterans Charter, it is nonetheless an important step in implementing corrections with the problems in the charter. With an upcoming election possible, the future of Bill C-55 looks uncertain and it could well die on the order paper. We humbly request that you support a one-day debate of the bill, followed by approval, which in turn would provide adequate time for members of all groups to express their concerns.

In closing I ask again, on behalf of all veterans, for your co-operation to help our veterans receive their much-needed and markedly improved benefits as soon as possible. This cannot happen if the passage of Bill C-55 is not handled expeditiously. Please help our veterans”.

The Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping states, “request the quick passage of Bill C-55. We appreciate there are changes to be made to the New Veterans Charter and I respectfully suggest (hope) that changes will occur one step at a time. I fully support the idea that the New Veterans Charter is a living document”.

The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association states, “it seeks your cooperation to support the passage of Bill C-55. Although the bill falls far short of addressing all of the problems of the New Veterans Charter, it is a first important step forward in the process of finishing and correcting problems in the charter. With election talk increasingly in the air, the future of Bill C-55 looks very bleak and it could well die on the Order Paper if there is an election call”.

In summary, the minister, veterans' organizations, veterans and we are in agreement that Bill C-55 does not cover all the requirements that we would like to see, but we do agree that it is a small step and one that should be taken before a possible election.

As was relayed to me, “Time is of the essence. After the bill is passed then we can start discussing more improvements to veterans' benefits. If we start asking for changes now, you know as well as we, that the bill will be stalled and there will be more meetings. Please, one step at a time and then we can move on. We agree, it is a small step, and more is needed”.

While there is clearly very strong support for the legislation, some veterans say that the changes do not go far enough, for example, to help our veterans facing poverty and homelessness.

This past Thanksgiving, more 800 food hampers were to be delivered to the needy veterans and their families in Calgary alone. We absolutely need more facilities, like Cockrell House, believed to be the nation's first homeless shelter for veterans because there are still many veterans living up in the bush and on the streets.

The veterans I met during my visit to Cockrell House wanted us to understand that they loved serving their country, that they would still be on the streets if it were not for Dave Munro and Russ Ridley, who helped launch this important facility. Dave explained that when he enlisted, new recruits signed an unlimited liability clause, which meant they were obligated to do whatever was requested, no matter what the hazard. Dave feels that because of the enormity of the sacrifice they were asked to make, Canada owes them and should help them get back on their feet.

Luke Carmichael was one of the homeless. The Halifax native arrived in Victoria a decade ago with no money and no place to stay after serving 19 years in the armed forces, including a stint in Cyprus. He spent seven years living in a tent and three years in a trailer. Luke said that he found much needed support at Cockrell House. He now has a beautiful apartment, kept tidy with military-like precision, and is reunited with his sweetheart of 40 years ago.

Cockrell House exists because of volunteers like Angus, Terri and Karl, all of whom help run this facility at considerable personal expense. Cockrell House will need to obtain permanent funding next year to continue its important work, despite the generous support from people like Russ Ridley.

Veterans across this country want real change. One veteran told me that because VAC initially withheld a compensatory award, he ended up homeless. Another veteran was sent a cheque for $40,000, only to have $28,000 reclaimed, causing him to lose his house.

Let us commit today to addressing all challenges faced by our veterans. As one veteran in Halifax said to me, “There are a lot of suffering veterans out there who VAC knows about, and even more out there who no one knows about. They are not followed”. He told us of three young veterans who died alone suffering from PTSD and who had lost their spouses. “Let's keep them alive”, he said.

Our veterans deserve more than one day, one week of remembrance. They have earned care when they need it and throughout their lives, lifelong respect and the necessary economic, familial and social supports to transition back to civilian life, to adjust to a new life or to age with dignity and grace. They do not want empty, hollow words with no action. They deserve leadership with real change and they deserve what they did so extraordinarily well, namely action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. With that, I thank our witnesses today for a very informative meeting.

We wish you all the best, sir, in your new position, and maybe we can do what Peter said. Maybe one day we can come to your office and maybe have a tour to see how your operation works.

With that, I thank you very much.

I think Bill C-55 might be coming to the floor, so the meeting is adjourned.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

moved that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House on behalf of our veterans. They have defended our values throughout the world and deserve the support of the government to ensure that, when they face difficult times upon their return—I am thinking of our veterans in the modern era— they are given the appropriate assistance, especially if they are injured.

Today, we will continue studying the important Bill C-55, which is at second reading. Passage of this bill means a great deal to our veterans. The government has agreed to provide $2 billion to come to the assistance of our veterans. I am thinking, among others, of the veterans in the modern era, those returning from Afghanistan with injuries. It is our responsibility to ensure that, should they have this misfortune, they at least do not have financial difficulties in future.

What are the statistics? We provide services to approximately 140,000 veterans. Of this number, 65,000 are veterans of World War II or the Korean War. The average age of the veterans of these wars is 87. We also provide services to approximately 67,000 veterans who served after the Korean War and whose average age is 57. These include modern-day veterans who are around 20, 25 or 30 years old and who are returning from Afghanistan.

As you may expect, these modern-day veterans have different needs than those who served in World War II or the Korean War, whose average age is 87, as I just mentioned. Why do they have different needs? They are young and, when they return wounded, their objective is to return to civilian life and to find a new job that fits their new reality—I am referring to any physical or psychological injuries they may have. The services we provide to them must therefore take into account this new reality that did not exist before.

What were our veterans receiving before? In the past, veterans received a disability pension, medical benefits, of course, to ensure that they could live independently, and long-term care, depending on their needs in this regard.

Today, our “new” veterans, our modern-day veterans, have completely different needs. In 2005, Parliament, in its wisdom, passed a new veterans charter. The vote was unanimous given the new needs. The reality of these individuals is different; they want to be rehabilitated, return to civilian life and continue to live a full life, and we provided a range of new services related to this new reality.

Despite the fact that this new charter was passed unanimously, we told our veterans and the associations representing them that the charter would be an evolving one. In fact, we have been listening and have now determined, based on the experiences of those who have come home wounded, that there are problems with the new charter that must be fixed.

Who did we listen to? We listened to the seven associations that represent them. I am referring to the Royal Canadian Legion, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association and other veterans' groups. We also listened to our veterans themselves and the ombudsman, who shared certain points of view with us. We also listened to parliamentarians who made comments on the changes that are needed. We also listened to our troops in Afghanistan. What is more, I went to Afghanistan where I had the opportunity to listen to what our soldiers had to say about the lump sum payment. I will elaborate on that in a few minutes.

We also listened to suggestions from representatives from standing committees and from the new veterans charter advisory group on changes to be made.

We said it was a living document. The government listened to what it was told and decided to make changes to this charter in order to meet the needs of today's soldiers and veterans.

What changes are we going to make to this new veterans charter? There are three changes, but they will bring in four other changes.

The first change involves income allocation. The basic purpose is to ensure that the veteran participates in a rehabilitation program in order to be able to return to civilian life, hold a new job taking any handicap into account, and continue to live a full life. A modern-day veteran returning from Afghanistan injured and participating in the rehabilitation program, will receive an allowance equivalent to 75% of his or her salary. However, a low-income earner receives roughly $26,000, which is not enough. Adjustments had to be made because some of these veterans have families and young children.

This is what Bill C-55 would do. A corporal's salary will now serve as the base for the 75%, meaning that a veteran returning injured from Afghanistan will receive at least $40,000 annually while participating in a rehabilitation program.

The second change concerns the permanent monthly allowance. We found that those coming home seriously injured and unable to return to work were not receiving enough financial help. Currently, soldiers returning home receive between $536 and $1,639 per month, based on the severity of their injuries. Those who cannot return to work because their injuries are too severe will receive an additional $1,000 per month for the rest of their lives.

Soldiers who have been seriously injured and cannot return to work due to the severity of their injuries will receive a minimum of $58,000 per year until the age of 65.

When the legislation was unanimously passed in 2005, the new veterans charter did not take veterans' previous injuries into account. That will be fixed: we will also take those injuries into consideration, which means that 3,500 people will now be receiving between $536 and $1,609 per month, and those amounts have now been indexed. Those 3,500 people will now benefit from this new measure.

I would now like to talk about the lump sum payment. For months a rumour was spreading that the government was giving nothing but a lump sum payment of $276 to injured veterans coming home from Afghanistan. It was also said that they were not being taken care of afterwards. But that is not true. Our veterans receive the first two benefits I spoke about, in addition to a third, the lump sum payment.

According to critics, people were often not able to properly manage the $276 that they received as compensation for their injuries. We checked, and 69% of veterans were satisfied, but 31% were not and would prefer to receive a different form of compensation.

We examined the 31% closely and found that they were often cases of people with mental health issues or people suffering from post-traumatic operational stress.

When I went to Afghanistan, I told our soldiers that I was prepared to change to be more flexible. One of our soldiers asked me to give them as much flexibility as possible. On the plane on the way home, I told myself that I would go further than I had planned to ensure that the needs of our modern-day veterans, who may come back from Afghanistan wounded, are met.

Under our bill, people will now have options with regard to the lump sum payment. If they prefer to receive the amount in cash, they can do so. If another veteran prefers to have the money as an allowance over a certain number of years, we can do that. If he or she wants to have it allocated over 5, 10, 20 or 25 years, it is possible. The veteran will receive an annual payment allocated over the desired number of years. The veteran can also choose to receive a combination of the two types of payments, receiving part of the amount in cash and part allocated over the desired number of years. These three changes in Bill C-55 will serve to better meet the needs of our modern-day veterans.

However, that is not all we did this year. As I mentioned, we have been listening to what our veterans have to say. We have made improvements to the system for those suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In the past, each case was examined individually and not everyone had the right to all services. We decided to change that, and now, anyone who is diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis will receive all the services that the department provides to veterans.

Another issue is agent orange. People wanted the eligibility period for the ex gratia payment of $20,000 to be extended by a year. Just before Christmas, I went to Fredericton to confirm that our government is extending the period by one more year. In addition, widows, who were not previously eligible, are now completely eligible for this ex gratia payment of $20,000. I cannot begin to express how happy these people were with our government's decision.

Another priority is to improve the quality and efficiency of the services we provide to our veterans. Among other things, we plan to reduce processing wait times by one-third by the end of March so that we provide services more effectively to our veterans.

We have also developed a new telephone system. Now, 80% of the veterans who call us receive an answer within two minutes.

We will also increase the number of case managers. Veterans returning from Afghanistan want to receive quick responses. We have added 20 case managers in the field, and in less than two weeks, our modern-day veterans can get answers about their rehabilitation plan.

We will also give departmental employees working on the front line more decision-making power, so that they can make quick decisions in providing services to our veterans. And this is just the beginning, since I am committed to paying close attention to the needs of our soldiers and our veterans, and to remaining in close contact with the associations that represent them.

This is a first step, here. My department is the only one to have received an additional $2 billion that was not originally included in the budget so that we can meet the needs of our modern-day veterans and ensure that our programs are tailored to their reality.

We will continue to work with organizations and advisory groups. I also want to thank the parliamentarians in this House. Since there are talks of a possible election in the very near future, we must ensure that our veterans, including our modern-day veterans, do not end up paying the price. This bill must be passed before the budget is passed, so that any injured soldiers and all soldiers becoming veterans have access to the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs and this government.

I thank hon. members for their support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There's just one thing. I know Bill C-55 is coming up, but today we're here on operational stress and suicide. We would like to try to keep those questions as much as we can to that, please.

Go ahead. You still have two minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In your concluding remarks you made reference to Bill C-55, and you're anxious to see that particular bill pass. I take it you're familiar with the content of the bill. If so, can you give any indication if there are things that should be included in that bill that could be possible amendments? Are there other things that vets are looking for?

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, I would first like to thank you for your invitation to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. This is my first appearance before a parliamentary committee and I am pleased to be participating in this discussion with you today.

With me is Colonel (retired) Charlie Cue, Director of the Research and Investigation Section and Special Advisor in my office.

You have invited me here today to discuss the work done by the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman in relation to combat stress and its consequences on the health of veterans and their families.

I would like to start by saying that I salute the work done on this issue by this committee and in fact by several other bodies. I hope that my views will be useful in your discussions.

Before going into the subject in hand, let me share with you how the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman operates under my leadership. We currently provide three main services to the veterans community. We provide information on the various programs and services available to veterans and their families through Veterans Affairs Canada and other groups serving the veterans community. We provide assistance and referrals to veterans who come to us, often as their last resort, after being bounced between organizations or after receiving conflicting advice. We also provide intervention. This can be as simple as an informal mediation between a veteran and a service provider on a single issue, or as complex as a full investigation of a systemic problem culminating in a formal report with recommendations.

To get back to the subject at hand, I would first like to say that I prefer to use the term "operational stress injuries", since it is a broader term than "combat stress". Many veterans who seek assistance from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman are often dealing with issues relating to operational stress injuries, even if there is another reason for their call. That is why the Office has an interest in this issue.

Here are a couple of examples that represent different issues brought to our office by veterans and their families in relation to their dealings with Veterans Affairs Canada. Both cases show that Veterans Affairs Canada appears to be ill-prepared to deal with veterans in a crisis situation.

In the first case, a veteran was in receipt of psychiatric services from a physician located in Ottawa, although he was a resident of Montreal. Veterans Affairs Canada, recognizing the importance of the patient-physician relationship, agreed to reimburse the travel for this arrangement. However, the physician in question was posted to Trenton, and when the veteran found himself in a crisis situation and requested permission to travel to Trenton to see his physician, Veterans Affairs Canada refused his request. After three months, when the spouse of the veteran contacted Veterans Affairs Canada because the veteran had become suicidal, she was advised to contact 911. As a last resort, she contacted the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, which began negotiating with Veterans Affairs Canada on her behalf. During the course of these negotiations, the Department of National Defence stepped forward, resolved the issue in a two-day period, and agreed to reimburse the veteran for his travel to Trenton.

In the second case, during the course of an in-depth transition interview, it was recognized that a veteran had significant mental health issues. Veterans Affairs Canada did not follow up with the veteran after he retired from the Canadian Forces. When his condition deteriorated, the veteran wound up in the criminal justice system and was incarcerated in a psychiatric institution. The family contacted the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman because they did not know where else to turn. We liaised with Veterans Affairs Canada, which eventually addressed the issue.

These two examples show the importance of responding quickly to the needs of veterans suffering from operational stress injuries, since their problems can deteriorate quickly.

That is why the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman will continue to be on guard and provide advice concerning services and programs offered to veterans dealing with operational stress injuries and the Department's transformation agenda. All of the measures designed to simplify and expedite the delivery of services will have a positive impact on veterans who have operational stress injuries.

The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman will work with the Department on mental health issues, and will challenge it from time to time, when we intervene on behalf of the veterans who seek our services. I would also like to point out that employees of the Office have received training so they are better able to help veterans in distress when they call. That information has been very useful.

Individual interventions, discussions with the Department in that regard and any systemic research we might undertake in future will be based on research and studies done by other organizations. That will avoid duplicating effort in this area.

There are a number of relevant areas that you may want to consider in your work, as these may have been overshadowed by more visible issues. Among other things, there are access to occupational stress injury clinics and transition challenges. Maybe I'll elaborate a little bit about these particular points.

In terms of access to occupational stress injury clinics, we are concerned that people in crisis don't have direct access to occupational stress injury clinics. There are challenges with transitions, going from a spectrum of care in the National Defence area to a spectrum of care by Veterans Affairs Canada. The difference between transitioning from medication and transitioning from a caregiver is an issue that needs to be looked at.

There is complex bureaucracy and red tape in processes at Veterans Affairs, which in fact are really worse for somebody suffering from mental injuries than for somebody suffering from physical injuries. Everything makes those more complex for them.

There is also how Veterans Affairs is dealing with new research that is available in different fields, recognizing some of the latest reports that make linkages between conditions of service and possible injuries. There is the national strategy on homeless veterans. There is awareness and access to programs and services for reservists in particular, and the lack of research on veterans in the criminal justice system. Previously we quoted an example about somebody who did end up in the justice system, but there is no way of tracking how many veterans are in fact there right now.

In 2011 I will continue to push forward on veterans issues by focusing on unfair practices and making realistic recommendations for change. This will benefit all veterans, including those with operational stress injuries.

To focus energies and to guide both me and the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, I have chosen “One Veteran” as the 2011 theme. This will reinforce the idea that since sailors, soldiers, airmen, and airwomen, as well as members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, do not question where and when they must serve, for Veterans Affairs Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to determine the level of programs and services that will be provided based on the type of service rendered is an injustice of the first order.

To this end, I will be working closely with veterans advocacy groups to encourage them to consolidate their efforts to make the “One Veteran” principle a Veterans Affairs Canada reality, with the focus on service in general rather than on service “where and when”. I believe that the application of the “One Veteran” principle will simplify processes, lower costs, and result in better service to veterans.

In the coming months, based on the September 2009 report the office published entitled “Serve with Honour, Depart with Dignity”, I intend to pursue the recommendations already made to the minister regarding funeral and burial expenses. I will be putting forth recommendations on identified unfairness issues concerning the veterans independence program, and I will be taking a critical look at the Veterans Affairs transformation agenda.

I encourage you and your parliamentary colleagues to move to pass Bill C-55, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act. Although not comprehensive, the extra support that is offered is needed.

In conclusion, I want you to know that I focus on people and the effectiveness of outcomes rather than processes. We are seeing positive changes in the world of mental health at the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. We will continue to provide an objective viewpoint as to whether or not these outcomes are successful.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we are working hard to make Parliament work. I know that when it comes to Bill C-49, the Liberal House leader and his caucus want to kill Bill C-49. They do not want to send it to committee. We will call Bill C-49 for debate. We will call it for a vote and we look forward to members going on record to take their positions on that very clearly.

The government continues to make Parliament work and has been able to move our legislative agenda forward this week. I thank all members of the House for passing Bill S-6 Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, which would get rid of the faint hope clause, and make its way through the House of Commons. I think that was a good day. There were a number of victims' representatives in the gallery and I was very proud of that, as I think all members should be. We also passed Bill C-48 Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which will move to the other place.

Today we will continue the debate on the report stage of Bill C-46 Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, Following Bill C-46, we will call Bill S-10 Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, and Bill C-55 Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act.

Next week we will continue with the unfinished business from this week, plus Bill C-57 Improving Trade Within Canada Act; Bill C-50 Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-12 Democratic Representation Act; and Bill C-20 An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, .

To respond to the Liberal House leader's question, we will have opposition days scheduled for Tuesday, February 8 and Thursday, February 10, which would be for the Bloc Québécois.

I also will be giving priority to any bill that is reported from committee so that we can continue to move the legislative agenda forward.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

moved for leave to introduce bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)